the first amendment doesn't mean we always win but it means were not giving the government power to decide which view is right for our society. one last summation on the first memo question and then we will put out the religious liberty question on the table. there are a lot of cases building up in the lower courts. -- >> one lassummation on the first memo question and then we will put out the religious liberty question on the table. there are a lot of cases building up in the lower courts. in kentucky, the state spring court is confronting it christian printer who didn't want to print t-shirts for a local gay pride festival. should they have been forced to create the shirts? a gay coffee owner in seattle asked customers to leave their coffee shop because they were pro-life supporters. are you concerned about the difficulty the lower court will have if this pandora's box is open. >> i would like to live in a society that can absorb cases like that and live with the fact that there will be a minority of businesses and a minority of individuals who will not want to express certain things or

member, heon violated this was a violation of his first amendment rights. this oral argument is just over one hour. chief justice roberts: we'll hear argument first this morning in case 16-1466, janus versus the american federation of state, county, and municipal employees. mr. messenger. mr. messenger: mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, abood should be overruled because it failed to apply heightened first amendment scrutiny to a compulsory fee for speech to influence governmental policies. abood's failure places it at odds with harris, with knox, and a slew of other speech and association precedents. now respondents attempt to justify abood's results with rationales found nowhere in that decision, which undercuts any stare decisis value in retaining abood. justice ginsburg: may i ask, mr. messenger, if you are right about agency fees, what about three things: one is student activities fees. are they different and, if so, why? another is mandatory bar association payments. and the third is you have a public sector case. what about the private se

is case presents for the freedom of the press and the first amendment in a recent article by obvious sure shapiro shapiro points out the case raises a number of important press freedom question is where should courts draw the line between source building in conspiring what activities could complicate a journalist and a source is illegal behavior would putting a secure drop link soliciting leaks count as illegal conspiracy and the former reporter asked for documents on an individual while indicating that they think the person deserves to be exposed would that count as shared motive. see all these are legitimate questions that should be asked of the d.n.c. and but the d.m.c. claims in a statement to the press that quote unlike presidents trump and the democratic party respects the first amendment and cherishes the critical role that the free press plays in our democracy unless of course it's a press organization that you believe cost you an election then i guess all bets are off and you know first amendment can take a seat which is why much to the chagrin of the d.n.c. we will always b

you have wide-scale first amendment violations, as you said, in 23 states affected. justice kagan: but that would be to flip our usual stare decisis doctrine. our usual stare decisis doctrine makes it quite clear that reliance is an important consideration on the scales. mr. messenger: reliance on something that's constitutional. reliance on an illegal practice, no. for example, in arizona v. gant, which involved searches of cars under the fourth amendment, the court said the fact this was occurring in many places across the board is a reason for reversing it, and many individuals' fourth amendment rights were being violated. and so, in that instance, the prevalence of compulsory unionism in the states is a reason for reversing it. and then, in terms of contracts in general, i submit the contracts will survive, except for the excision of the compulsory unionism provisions due to severability. justice kagan: well, why is that? how many of these contracts have severability clauses, do you know? mr. messenger: i couldn't find a number for the public sector, your honor,

is going forward is going to be a big one as people begin to argue that the first amendment should give weight to things like speech in the last term justice gorsuch in one of interesting he said he would like to revisit fourth amendment on searches and seizures. he thinks it's unclear. the court ought to do house-cleaning there. it's a little hard to predict other than what james suggest probably the next nominee will align with conservatives, almost certainly. paul: alyysia, let's talk about politics, we have seen democrats react with horror, they are still sore over merrick garland approved in president obama's last year in office. congress confirm maryland judges in midterm years. >> i think that's right. kagen, justice scalia, several nominees from both parties had confirmed during midterm year. paul: filibuster is no -- >> you can blame harry reid for that in 2013 because he we wanted to pack the dc circuit so that they could reinforce the obama regulations. paul: that was for appellate courts. >> that's right. paul: with gorsuch nomination, the republicans decided to get rid of i

this gets close to a first amendment free zone because political speech is such a core part of the first amendment it is a political speech free zone. while you may be, the government may be able to ban a certain small class of material, for instance the advocacy material, it couldn't sweep in all the rest of available political speeches t there, resist, shirts, me, too, and so on. that is exactly what it's trying to do here is try to silence all the legitimate speech to go after a small slice and it can already regulate it under its other statutes. >> so what do you put in what he state can do in addition to vote for candidate x or vote against prop sigs y? >> as a bright line rule, your honor, i don't see any other feasible bright line. i think that the state would have, if there is an intimidating message that comes in i think the state would have to deal with that on an as applied basis as events occur under the existing statutes. >> you took the position that me too -- please i.d. me wasn't intimidating. >> no, your honor. i don't believe i --. >> or it was free speech that should n

the course as it violates the first amendment. we heard comments from chuck schumer and nancy pelosi during the 45 minute briefing. [inaudible] [inaudible] leader schumer will be joining us momentarily. when he does, he will have some remarks. i'm senator macy of hawaii. i think everyone who is here, especially later pelosi. and when leader schumer comes in everyone else was here, i would like to start with some words regarding justice kennedy's retirement. the next supreme court justice will have the power to over turn role versus weight intake way healthcare protections for tens of millions of americans. the next supreme court justice will be in a position to continue the decades long assault on working people funded by -- hello chuck. let me finish my statement. funded by far right groups like the quote brothers. the groups have spent millions of dollars to pack our courts with people who will serve their own interests. i know this as a member of the senate judiciary committee. yesterday, this effort continues sadly and predict

>> that could be viewed as political. >> what about the first amendment? >> it would be covered or that wouldn't be allowed? >> i understand the idea and is obviously a lot of examples. there are some hard calls. we're about to make it bipartisan. >> to be strict the need in law schools or other schools to restrict conversation in the class to the subject including politics and we can think of many instances where hundreds and thousands have to have the authority to operate a standard to restrict the speech to the subject at hand so if we are at this place the problem will inevitably arise it is to apply the challenges after the event, so my question is how does that work lacks suppose he made a mistake and kept out the person either of which could have a rainbow on it. suppose that he is mistaken. is there any remedy in your state? >> what would occur if there is a speech that is described they would ask the person to cover it up and the remedy for that then is the person can either cover it up or their name will be identified in the log indicated they we

it undermines the first amendment and undermines our democracy. some of these decisions that could be affected if they're casual about decisions made would be rolled versus wade, women's right, lgbtq writes are all at stake. under the gop control of washington, jobs, healthcare, basic rights are under threat on this trump court. what is at stake is a character of america and the future of our children. that is why were pleased. we have a better deal, better jobs that are future and part of that is the legislation reference by the leader is being introduced today that the senator introduce. we are going to fight this. this is about the character of america, the strength of the middle class which is the backbone of our democracy. high-yield to representative cartwright of pennsylvania who -- >> excuse me. if you don't mind, i know that she needs to get to her meeting, you are -- >> i really appreciate it. thank you to everyone who does appear champion this. before i just yesterday supreme court decision, i want to say that right now there are people

let's start with the great behemoth, the first amendment. he 12if all amendments had passed, it would firstve been the amendment, it would have been the third amendment. it does not have the same ring to it -- your third amendment right to the freedom of speech. one of the things we are going to cover is that the first word of the first amendment is congress. congress should make no law. that should be interpreted to mean that the bill of rights only restricts the federal government, not the state. and james madison in his first version of the bill of rights had in a provision that said specifically that no state shall interfere with the right to freedom of religion or consciousness, which is sometimes speech, and the press. and the senate got rid of it. he said that is the most valuable provision on the whole list. well guess what? the supreme court under john marshall will say well, congress means congress, it only applies to the federal government. it will take us another -- not quite 100 years -- to get the 14th amendment that will change

it is fully protected by the first amendment andnd cannot be published in united states. many laws hav content countriese laws against hate speech. how does that work? >> impact as they been completely ineffective at countering. the same problems we still have in this country and lastss persn to say we can rest on our laurels the progress we made in reducing discrimination andio discriminatory violence is despite the absencef of hate las and i'm not sure how many follow what going on in europe but we have a frightening rise of racist violence and discrimination as well as speech against. minority groups and the rise of anti-semitism and it's frightening and the rise of violence against immigrants and against refugees and against [inaudible] and muslims in various minority groups and what surprised me was in light of that experience how many europeans human rights activists and how many international agencies are urging those countries to move more in the direction of the united states and to rely on civil society through counter speech and anti- discoloration laws and law

what grade would you give to the state of the first amendment first amendment on campus today. your satisfaction. to let you answer this question first. and the only one on the panel who is actually part of this job. i give it a b. i think i am a tough grader. there's thousands and thousands of college and universities and even though we hear on a regular basis about things that were concerned about most of those placessi their expression occurs on the campuses. there's not obvious examples of censorship. i think that the notion that there's a serious structural crisis would be an overstatement although there certainly reasons to worry. for a for you reasons. after having spent the last three years each yearor speaking a lot to students about this issue i can say that while they are bringing very important values in questions and ir on the issue think that their concerns are worth listening to in a deeper not dismissing or being condescending to. there is a balance on the other side of civic knowledge that despite concerns about the emotional well-being of their colleagues and

this is just a personal attack on his religion that they displayed a violation of this man's first amendment rights that's what the ruling says so this particular ruling only applies to one baker in this one instance but it does open the door for future cases to effectively decide this matter what i'm saying most importantly is they should have made a commonsense secular kind of argument where they just focused on the bigotry of this individual and relied on just just run of the mill discriminatory kind of language they should have got off got it got after him not for his religion but the way that the attack was made was just bad lawyer and really when it comes down to it they focus completely around this religious animosity issue and it really did edge right into a first amendment problem which raised the standard for what the court had to had to review any time you move into religion things like race or religion you're actually raising the standard of the level of review that the court engages in so really this is honestly just bad lawyer but at the same time it does kind of it does kind o

has case presents for the freedom of the press and the first amendment in a recent article by obvious or shapiro shapiro points out the case raises a number of important press freedom questions where should courts draw the line between source building in conspiring what activities could complicate a journalist and a source is illegal behavior would putting a secure drop link soliciting leaks count as illegal conspiracy and the former reporter asked for documents on an individual while indicating that they think the person deserves to be exposed would that count as shared motive. see all these are legitimate questions that should be asked of the d.n.c. and but the d.m.c. claims in a statement to the press that quote unlike presidents trump and the democratic party respects the first amendment and cherishes the critical role that the free press plays in our democracy unless of course it's a press organization that you believe cost you an election then i guess all bets are off and you know first amendment can take a seat which is why much to the chagrin of the d.n.c. we will always be wa

let us now begin our expiration of the state of the first amendment at public universities. the chair of our panel this morning is a distinguished pulitzer prize-winning columnist of the chicago tribune. i can think of no one better to lead this discussion. please welcome clarence. [applause] >> i am delighted to be here this morning and honored to been asked to be the moderator for the panel today. [inaudible] my son is now college-age and free-speech was a right-wing thought. [inaudible] every time i hear about a free-speech or some other right wing are wanting to advocate for having a public forum and it is not just for one side but every side but it's something that every parent learns but kids don't learn things automatically. so, that is why we are here to talk about the topic of free speech and what is the role on campus and what is the attitude but how do we have these quality discourse without getting to fisticuffs. in recent years universities have had a number of questions about their role in the open-mindedness of students and faculty and administrators and the p

that is now susceptible to attack the first amendment. they make is that both public and private? great. another problem is that janus applies to the public sector because it is a constitutional holding. i think there will be an effort to extort janus to the private sector that will happen in congress that also in the court. you might think that's crazy he have the requirement of the state action and there is no action when they decide to negotiate collective bargaining agreements but i am more worried about the prospect of erosion of the state action doctrine with the fifth justice replaced from kennedy. we may see a constitutional path to export both the agency and its use of our presentation and terribly devastating there are breadcrumbs in the janice opinion that you think of retroactivity that justice alito has a number of lines that he talks about billions of dollars of agency fees to be extracted over the last couple of years but that was set up janus very skillfully sees that he harvested years later in what is happening with janus potentially is a signal that unions shoul

this has nothing to do with first amendment rights. this has everything to do with power and wealth wanting more at the expense of working families and that's why they are willing to spend millions and millions and millions of dollars to defund as i'm quoting, defund and defang public union sectors. we knew this was coming and we have been preparing with our union and other unions. we developed a program called afscme strong and having one-a -one conversations. we have had close to one million individual conversations with members and nonmembers to talk about why they need to be involved in their union. but more importantly to listen to them. and we have found that when we reach out to them -- and this isn't rocket science -- when we reach out to them and talk to them, freedom foundation, knocks on their doors, our folks tell them to get the hell off their porch. we have to continue that afscme strong approach in communicating and talking with our folks, mobilizing, educating and organizing. this is one supreme court decision. this is

very good on the first amendment. probably the biggest defender of the freedom of speech that probably we've ever had. but was a bit of a philosopher king in the sense that he struggled with every case. it's not that he was swinging back and forth at random but didn't fit into convention at jures prudential roles and i think that's problematic for the rule of law. you want consistency. you don't want everyone aiming their arguments to try to fit into the equal dignity clause or whatever the latest writing that he might have done. and you can't even make blanket statements that he was great on constitutional structure or individual liberty or something, things like that. he had that great concurrence from my perspective on the commerce clause in a case like lopez and in bond about federalism and individual rights, structure for federalism protects liberty but he also in rh, i guess because drug users shouldn't be as respected as the lgbt community, i don't know why, said that they can regulate plants you grow in your b

us something mike wallace used to go undercover this is what the press is that is that's the first amendment so no most read what's that what really struck me that's interesting about the press and all of this is that the mainstream press pretty much you know when this broke when the d.n.c. broke the law suit me even to the very kind of ignored all the press freedom implications that we're talking about today about the. p.j. was talking about and they kind of turned the conversation into the you know the standard you know trump versus democrats left versus right issue right what does it say about journalism when they're kind of ignoring the threat to them and just spoke a single one of the ratings points on the left right debate over something that could totally pull the bottom out from their ability to report. to use our current parlance they're in bed with a deep state that they're part and parcel of this group and interestingly enough these people and i don't want to get into labels but you know what i mean the. professional left out whatever whatever to call it because i hate the labels

and there wouldn't be any first amendment problem with enforcing our law against that. justice gorsuch: i have a quick question about the remedy. as i understand it, colorado ordered mr. phillips to provide comprehensive training to his staff, and it didn't order him to attend a class of the government's own creation or anything like thbuto provide comprehensive staff training. why isn't that compelled speech and possibly in violation of his free-exercise rights? because presumably he has to tell his staff, including his family members, that his christian beliefs are iscriminatory. mr. yarger: he -- a training requirement is a common remedy that is used in many civil rights cases. justice gorsuch: but this isn't attending your training, mr. yarger. mryarger: he doesn't have to say that his -- justice gorsuch: mr. yarger, again, i agree with you, some sort of training by an outside group, but this order was ordering him to provide training and presumably compelling him to speak, therefore, and to speak in ways that maybe offend his religion and certainly compel him to sp

was burning a draft card not sufficient to give him a first amendment? phillips considers cake baking to be expressive, doesn't give him first amendment exemption to a content neutral regulation of public accommodation sales in the retail context. this court already said that that interest in prohibiting discrimination on basis of identity in public accommodations is an interest unrelated to expression. it serves compelling interests, even where race is not involved. >> is your answer to my hypothetical about the religious legal services organization the same as mr. yeager. >> if catholic legal services has offered a service to the public general, let's say it was wills. died,-sex, someone who the survivor -- >> you're changing the hypothetical. the services they offered was pro bono legal services. whether it's wills or contracts or landlord tenant. >> i don't think they have to argue for a position that they disagree with. if they provide rules or they provide landlord tenants to a straight couple, they would have to provide that to a gay couple. had a

try the first amendment. try looking at history. try looking at computers, and so for the last 14 years, there have been cases that have been trying to please justice kennedy and deal with the case because here, there was a somewhat new standard for measuring the amount of asymmetry and partisanship in redistricting plans, what was added by taking the maryland case is it raised justice kennedy's favorite theory in this area, which is that maybe rather than thinking of these as equal protection cases, they're really better thought of as first amendment cases where someone is being penalized based just on who they are and what they believe, like in the patronage case where a janitor is fired by a governor because he's a democrat rartthe than a republican. everybody would see that and deal with the huge punt where the courts came up with an opinion by chief justice roberts that was a punt that decided in very strange ways on standing grounds that rather than addressing the entire state districting plan in wisconsin, which was alleged t

first of all was you have to open the senate up. the last year of the previous democrat majority, 2014, there were only 15 roll call votes on amendments the entire year. in the first year of our majority in 2015 we had over 200. open the senate up, let people vote. number two, we needed regular order, which means the bill is actually worked on together in committee, comes out to the floor with bipartisan support, and has a better chance of success. he said, the best example i can think of was the bill to rewrite no child left behind. the law had proved to be unworkable and unpop l by the time it came out of committee, you had the democrats and republicans lined up. it went to the floor, it was relatively open for amendments, not that absolutely everybody got everything they wanted but in the end it passed with a very large majority. prident obama called it a christmas miracle and "the wall street journal" said it was the largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter century. the humorous roy blunt jr., who grew up in georgia, has written, quote, you start getting into trouble when you stop sounding like where you gr

it is in the first amendment. press is identified as explicitly something we're protecting. >> i say this without an ounce of cynicism. thank you for this. thank you for standing up with journalists. thank you for sitting together and having a conversation on this. i hope it can happen on many different issues going forward. >> now we will go save the kids. >> congressman jordan, call the administration and get answers, call us back. 2,300 kids still separated from their families. erica? >>> commercial airlines taking a stand. what are they saying when it comes to some of those children and others? that's next. let someone else do the heavy lifting. tripadvisor compares prices from over 200 booking sites to find the right hotel for you at the lowest price. so you barely have to lift a finger. or a wing. tripadvisor. i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual

there are first amendment interests that are at stake. so i'll reserve judgment, don, i will we're able to learn more tomorrow when mr. wolf is arraigned. but, again, you have to be truthful with investigators. but i think we have to be very careful because we don't want to see the first amendment eroded as president trump would like in this country. >> i'm reading this from "the new york times" article. it says mr. wolf's case led to the first known instance of the justice department going after a person's data under president trump. the seizure disclosed in a letter ally watkin suggested they'll continue the aggressive tactics employed by president barack obama. we know this president has complained bitterly about leaks, has turned legitimate stories into stories about leaks rather than the substance of the actual story. >> he's also declared the media is the enemy of the american people. and one of the publications involved here, "the new york times," is an entity the president routinely goes after. i think that's the reason the justic

this is against the first amendment according to conservatives. the supreme court has ruled that is the case. public sector workers have the right to not pay union fees. this is a blow to unions. 7.2% of each of those workforces , in the private sector that is so many more people. a third of private sector workers are in unions versus a few percent of public, private sector workers. kevin ispreme court, outside the supreme court to give us the rmb of this. forhis is a big victory conservatives. there is a freedom of speech first amendment argument right nonunion workers do not have to fees forhese agency collective bargaining. this is a major loss for big labor. they thought this was able to help them raise revenue. this is the latest case that goes against big labor. the first amendment argument the supreme court heard does overturn a 1977 case. big loss for big labor and a win for republicans who fought against this. the ruling 5-4. vonnie: just five states count for half of america's public unions. ohio. let's bring in david westin as well this

indeed, under first amendment law, all speech isn't even speech that is protected by the first amendment. the idea that all money must be protected speech when all speech isn't protected speech just flies in the face of precedent and common sense. but if you can maintain that loop so that the courts will always protect the dark money, so that the dark money interests can keep their power and around d around you go, you he a very dangerous operation going on. i'll close by saying that -- i'll use a military analogy. the dark money operation is all over. it is after us in elections. it is after us in administrative agencies. it is after us with lobbying in the halls of congress. it is after us in all these different ways i've just described in the courts. we a tea essentially dark money, artillery fire, every singleoment. on multiple fronts. in artillery, there is a thing called counter battery. where you fire back at the artillery that is firing at you. that needs to be a priority for democrats. we need to make sure that the spotlight of disclosure is on these webs, on these networks, foc

first amendment issue.idea that a basic fee sort of cost for negotiating a contract is somehow invoking a first amendment production -- protection is ridiculous. it is more evidence this is extremely partisan court who beli that rich people don't have enough money and everybody else has too much. that is what is going on. this institution is not firmly rooted on any first amendment principle. it is rooted on he who has the gold makes the rules. kevin: you are running for attorney general. you are running in august for the democraticyou are running ir the democratic primary. that puts you in the legal fight against the trump administration. that was part of your decision to get into that race. what are you going to be doing should you be elected in your state from a legal standpoint to counteract these measures you disagree with? andh: there are two things the attorney general should be doing. standing up for people to write, particularly as it relates to the trump administration, but also -- kevin: which on

a lecture about the first amendment from anyone on the left who are trying to curtail the first amendmentbut leaving that aside. it is not a debate about the right to speak. it is it a debate whether it is appropriate to scream at people and force them out of for example, restaurants this is not winning them over. it is an effort to intimidate it. you can't tell me they are trying to inform sarah huckabee sanders, they are punishing her. >> the administration don't talk to the american people and they don't have regular press briefings or town hall. this is the only time they speak with him. >> tucker: she -- wait hold on. >> there is a difference. >> yesterday, you said they don't give press briefings. we hear a lot from the administration and its opponents. and i welcome that uniquey on television. i lining debates and am glad you are here. we disagree. we should have a conversation. you don't have a right to scream at me in a restaurant from front of my children or scream at a my home or come to my funeral. do you see the difference in intimidatinge in the public space. >> understand t

religious freedom strand of the first amendment, free exercise of religion, but there is first amendment. and the first amendment strand needs to be bound as well. in the average case that first amendment strand isn't there. in straight public accommodation case, i'm running my diner around don't want to see gay folks in violation of state law i suspect the court would have no problem upholding a fine against that business owner, notwithstanding his relynn us beliefs. broadly applicable laws are generally going to be upheld. i think in this case, there needed to be some analysis whether there is least restrictive way to do it and some other things. in the cause of doing that analysis the civil rights tribunal in colorado blew it by being open in their hostility towards his religious beliefs. i would not be that concerned. the market takes takes care of these things. 99.9% business owners want customers, whether race, religion, o sexual preference or not. most people hold religious beliefs willing to forecold business. he stopped doing wedding cakes entirely after the decision in order to

it comes through in his first amendment free-speech opinion, an area of the law in which kennedy was clearly the most libertarian member of the court's. if other commentators have dared to put justice kennedy and libertarianism in the same sense it's usually when they have been describing his first amendment free-speech opinion. here we see kennedy in his first amendment free-speech opinion drawing on the same principles of those that underpin the dialogue on freedom. a cj-- civic educational initiative that he created alongside the american bar association following the terrorist attack on 911. this is very interesting initiative for understanding justice kennedy's jurisprudence and is something that i think has been paid insufficient attention. it's a been mentioned in a couple footnotes in articles and kind of-- well, it's example of kennedy. running around and to tell american high school students how they should be reacting to the attacks of 911, but an actual fact is if you delve into the idea of the dialogue on freedom it becomes clear that it's a great way to understand his j

first class is appropriate. but in most cases, it's not. and my amendment to the appropriations b saysy simply you can fly first class but you have to get the inspector general of your department to sign off ont. there have been audits done where practice has been abused. >> senator i suspect that most peel in our audience will agree with you and i'll lose this one with bad ally but please come back to see us again soon. >> send me that check, man. [laughter] >> you take a check from me. absolutely stuart. [laughter] >> senator always a pleasure. thanks for being with us. we appreciate it. thank you. all right where's this market going to open? okay we're down 200 -- more than that. earlier today now we're going to go up 20 following some interesting news on trades. up 20 at the opening bell. a wild scene at the new york airport jetblue flightsed by police look at that they thought it was hijacked turneddous it was a big mistake. we'll explain after this. man: i got scar tissue there. same thing with any dent or dings on this truck. they all got a story abo

it's not a first amendment issue, private owners have a right to do and say what they want, the players have no power. when you have the president, who is a public figure, the government essentially, attacking these athletes and telling them they shouldn't be employ and creating pressure on the owners who do employ them, it does become a first amendment issue. you have the other two branchs of government attacking these players. it's disappointing when you see how easily the public is willing to silence the player. i think what's also interesting about this too is when you look at the combination of not just the flags and flyovers and police and authoritarian elements that are taking place at the game, the fact that you also have the federal government and you have the pentagon essentially paying for these patriotic displays at the same time when the players are being silent. >> i wonder whether many -- i did not know that. i'm in the news business. i had no idea that they were paying for these patriotic flyovers and visitations from military and others. that was happening right now in

believe there is nothing better no greater example of the glory of our grand republic and the first amendment the disks that their turn to kim jong un and say you got one of these people you know mr owen i've never been one for dictatorships but you know just once i'd make an exception for that guy but this is our country this is what it is he kidding yeah let me and you and that's the way it is so there's something tyrell strangely beautiful about this juventus and squatting from this petulant. person with with a younger issues yes. you know it's really is and when i look at all of this i agree with you ana with the more voices the better and ultimately what our job should be doing is not throwing stones at each other as news organizations calling out when we do wrong of course but what we need to be doing is all getting together to better educate the public on how to read and digest news and to make the right decisions and be an informed electorate some thank you always having me on and always a pleasure to have you on line all takers for our no of wine no radio thank you sir . all right i'

amendment. they were the intended beneficiary. meanwhile one studied and went back at all of the supreme court cases and decided in the first 43 years after the amendment was adopted during that time the supreme court heard 20 cases on 14 amendment right. 312 cases a business corporations. they have also been pioneers in securing some of them most fundamental rights. due to the process that these corporations would be the coast guard of the economy. the cutting edge legal claims in court that have often had the effects. in the nearly 20 century the supreme court was first read of the amendment to protect the freedom of the press. and protect the cases when it involves the fate of that we seen a newspaper in the governor and senator he was trumped before trial. promising to make them great again. he railed against the policy. he railed against what he calls fakeness. they impose a tax on their newspaper corporation that was thought to be opposed. and the newspaper corporations a lot of them challenge them in court. the freedom of the press was only a prevention and stop the government speech in the advertising pack was pretty small.

>> i think you have to look at the first amendment and the fact that the first amendment is wit united states that says, i have the right to choose my freedom of association. and because i was mandated and coerced to pay this fee out of my paycheck without any knowledge or thought of whether i wanted to or not, that to me is the personal part of it and that's the part that i totally disagree with. >> do you think that there is some benefit that public service unions bring to their employees through collective bargaining? that was the argument of course that the people on the other side of this case were making. >> well, i want to make the point right now that i'm not anti-union. i just believe that if you want to join a collective bargaining unit such as a union, you ought to have that right. and you decide whether, for yourself, whether you believe that union is doing the best for you or whether it's not. and the point i make is that i didn't have that choice, you know. whether i agreed or disagreed, if the union was good or bad, you know, i was still having to pay the fee and no one

isn't that the genius of the first amendment? >> absolutely. this is why america and american muslims especially have the responsibility by being blessed. if i have grown up in syria or saudi arabia, i would not be the man who sits before you today respecting and learning from authors like yourself and having the opportunity to be on "life, liberty & levin" and talk about freedom, right? i would be a different consciousness because i'd be fighting for freedom in syria, i probably wouldn't be alive today or if i lived in saudi arabia, influenced by anti-western conspiracy theories, et cetera. so america needs to get out, especially the left, needs to get out of its ethno sentrism and what's happening in washington and hollywood and look at the world and say you know what? a quarter of the world's population is muslim. it's a 1400+-year-old religion that now is going through a time in history which it's beginning to move against dictatorships and theocracy. we can take sides in that or continue to work with just the strong horse and pretend that

repeated, first three amendments. mr. sanford. >> while we're at it if i could be recorded as no on the first vote of this series, had i been here. >> the first three amendments. >> no, , no, no. >> without objection. >> i will ask unanimous consent i be recorded as a note on the first three amendments. >> first three amendments, any other questions or concerns? the chair to close the committee in recess until immediately following the vote series on the floor of the house. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come back to order. it is now 12:35 and we'll continue and resume the budget markup 2019 budget markup, and we are in that to want amendments. we still have four remaining 211 before we moved to the tier two. at this time that you ask if there any additional amendments?

that is the closest i think we have come to a frontier of first amendment adjacent regulation that we have seen, that congress passed a law that said if you are posting this kind of thing on your site, you have to shutdown. craigslist took a big hit. do we on this panel have libertarian concerns about that or is sex trafficking the kind of thing where you say this is a grave enough risk that is worth taking the hit? >> i do not think there is a debate on that. >> there is. >> i'm saying if there are really sites that are pushing -- >> the issue is not that the site excelled as advocating for sex trafficking. >> it is being used for that. proved, i think you have grounds to be able to shut that down. >> facebook has been used for all kinds of horrible things. >> yes. at some point, you have to decide. >> does it meet community standards? there is a wide spectrum of what that applies to, but i think we can -- >> i think that is one of the things we are constantly trying to get better at is how do we find these things quickly to be able to take action on them at the scale that we are ope

that implicates first amendment concern. the second is, puts the burden on the government to prove that someone has abused their free speech rights. and this court's normally pretty jealous of protective speech. so again, why isn't that latter approach preferable? >> for the same reason that it wasn't a necessary step in casey. because in the regulation of professional speech, the government -- given the close and reliant relationship that the patient has on her physician -- can require a certain amount of speech to insure that the patient makes informed decisions about very important matters. the main difference from casey is how much less burdensome this disclosure is because there's more flexibility in how it can be delivered and because it's only giving a phone number for the patient to call and get information from the government rather than requiring the physician to herself hand over a complete state-written pamphlet which is what the disclosure in casey required. >> would it be fair to say -- nd i stillen don't have