Courts will not be able to ignore the reality that education is speech and that states are imposing unconstitutional content and viewpoint discrimination.
Peter Vlaming lost his job because, although he agreed to use the transgender student’s opposite-sex name, he refused to use transgender pronouns.
If the ‘purpose of this regulation’ is to affect pharmaceutical pricing, then confining disclosures only to television advertisements would by definition have a limited impact.
The ACLU has chosen activism over free speech advocacy for abortion, and hit the warpath against the First Amendment rights of small business owners.
The powerful defense of free speech Kennedy delivered in one of his final cases shows a path forward for a nation struggling with severe partisan divides.
Janus v. AFSCME caps a Supreme Court term that is surprisingly of the moment, given how long cases take to make their way to the court.
The majority opinion in NIFLA provides crisis pregnancy centers a nearly impenetrable protection from government interference with their pro-life message.
If Peterson can be tripped up by the most obvious and easily refuted rejections of his non-compelled-speech program, the very thing that propelled his rise to fame, what good is he?
The usual political labels of Left and Right cannot explain the exploding attacks on freedom of speech and conscience that are running rampant today.
Based on oral arguments, even the liberal justices didn’t like a law that discriminates against pro-life pregnancy clinics.
A powerful amicus brief seeks to bring humanity to a complex legal question about free speech overlaid with the also-controversial issue of abortion.
An appeals court overturned a Baltimore ordinance that forced Christian nonprofit pregnancy centers to post signage in their waiting rooms saying that they do not offer or refer for abortions.
A long-fought battle to keep the Golden State from forcing its pro-life citizens to choose between obeying conscience or the law of the land is on its way to Washington DC for a final decision.
Why is Colin Kaepernick’s situation playing out in the court of public opinion while Jack Phillips’ is playing out in the Supreme Court of the United States?
When we refuse to acquiesce in a state policy, we remind the world that not everyone agrees. In compelling speech on these subjects, the state forces that disagreement into the shadows.
To forbid people from articulating beliefs and peacefully acting consistently with those beliefs is, at its core, an attempt to forbid the beliefs themselves.
- Mandatory Masks Aren’t About Safety, They’re About Social ControlTo those looking to benefit politically from emergenciecontinue reading >
- Media’s Unpunished Lies Hurt The Nation Far Worse Than Trump’s Indefensible TweetsThe grim joke of the 20th century was that one death iscontinue reading >
- COVID Rolls Downhill In Wyoming: The American People Are Making The Hard Calls When Our Leaders Won’t"That slice of government cheese is going to eventuallycontinue reading >