Mediaboss Marketing

So that was a story with three camps: (1) The 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online (that wasnt big news), (2) the small number of preachers who rebelled (big story in national media) and (3) government leaders who just wanted to do the right thing and keep people alive.

However, things got more complex during the Easter weekend (for Western churches) and thats what Crossroads host Todd Wilken and I discussed during this weeks podcast (click here to tune that in).

As it turned out, there were FIVE CAMPS in this First Amendment drama and the two that made news seemed to be off the radar of most journalists.

But not all. As Julia Duin noted in a post early last week (Enforcement overkill? Louisville newspaper tries to document the war on Easter), the Courier-Journal team managed, with a few small holes, to cover the mess created by different legal guidelines established by Kentuckys governor and the mayor of Louisville.

Thats where drive-in worship stories emerged as the important legal wrinkle that made an already complex subject even harder to get straight.

Those five camps? They are (1) the 99% of religious leaders who cooperated and took worship online, (2) some religious leaders who (think drive-in worship or drive-thru confessions) who tried to create activities that followed social-distancing standards, (3) a few preachers who rebelled, period, (4) lots of government leaders who established logical laws and tried to be consistent with sacred and secular activities and (5) some politicians who seemed to think drive-in religious events were more dangerous than their secular counterparts.

Say what? Look at the Louisville laws, for example. Why were drive-in worship services with, oh, 100 cars containing people in a big space more dangerous than businesses and food pantry efforts that produced, well, several hundred cars in a parking lot?

Why was if OK for people in cars to bunch up at a drive-thru liquor establishment, but they couldnt part near each other at a church service?

Meanwhile, you had people doing essential things at grocery stores and big-box discount stores that jammed parking lots and then had people (masks and gloves optional) getting out of their cars and going inside. Why was a drive-thru confessional with the priest 10-plus feet away from someone in a car more dangerous than that?

The same clash was happening in a few other places. The Associated Press did a solid piece about what was happening in Mississippi: Justice Department takes churchs side in 1st Amendment suit. Heres the start of that:

WASHINGTON (AP) The Justice Department took the rare step of weighing in on the side of a Mississippi Christian church where local officials had tried to stop Holy Week services broadcast to congregants sitting in their cars in the parking lot.

As the coronavirus pandemic spread, leaders at Temple Baptist Church in Greenville began holdingdrive-in servicesfor their congregation on a short-wave radio frequency from inside an empty church save for the preacher.

Arthur Scott, the 82-year-old pastor, said Tuesday that it was a good compromise for his group, a wonderful way to preach the gospel and still its like they are there, but you cant go out and see them, but you know theyre there.

The federal involvement adds to the rising tension over reconciling religious freedom with public health restrictions designed to fightthe pandemic, disputes that are playing out along the same partisan lines that mark the nations overall divide.

Greenville city leaders argue the services violate stay-at-home orders and could have put peoples lives in jeopardy. Church officials believe they have been singled out for their religion, especially after eight police officers were sent last week to ticket the faithful, $500 apiece, for attending services, including the pastors wife.

This detail was really interesting:

Attorney Ryan Tucker of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents the church, says theres a Sonic Drive-In restaurant about 200 yards (180 meters) from the church where patrons are still allowed to roll down their windows and talk.

Ah, but some of those drive-in worshipers might roll down their car windows and raise their hands, singing praises to God. Thats way more dangerous than a drive-thru liquor window or fast-food takeout services. Right?

Heres one more look at the legal nature of this conflict:

The Justice Department argued in the filing that the city appeared to be targeting religious conduct by singling churches out as the only essential service (as designated by the state of Mississippi) that may not operate despite following all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state recommendations regarding social distancing.

The facts alleged in the complaint strongly suggest that the citys actions target religious conduct, the filing says. If proven, these facts establish a free exercise violation unless the city demonstrates that its actions are neutral and apply generally to nonreligious and religious institutions or satisfies the demanding strict scrutiny standard.

In other words, this is kind of like an equal access laws case. You cant regulate religious activities MORE than you do secular activities with similar methods and circumstances. Government officials cant rule that religion is uniquely dangerous.

Who would have thought wed see First Amendment battles about drive-ins!

Theres much more in the podcast. Please give it a listen and pass it on.

This story isnt over yet, I am sure.

Read the original:
New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion

All over the country, houses of worship have done the right thing by suspending services to save lives in the fight against COVID-19.

Meanwhile, state authorities are breaking the law by forbidding gatherings among a minority of faith groups that continue to assemble. In the war on COVID-19, they believe the free exercise of religion is unimportant and no longer the law. They feel authorized to punish worship and prayer. Examples:

Authorities arrested eight prayerful abortion protesters Saturday outside an abortion clinic in Charlotte, N.C., for defying the states order to stay at home for anything other than essential outings. Authorities arrested Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne for holding two church services in Tampa, Fla., on charges of unlawful assembly in violation of the governors safer-at-home order. Despite that arrest, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis questions the states authority to interfere with a church.

Authorities arrested Pastor Tony Spell for holding services near Baton Rouge, La.

San Francisco authorities last week issued their first citation for a violation of the stay-at-home order to Ron Konopaski. The 86-year-old grandfather was alone outside a Planned Parenthood praying and suggesting alternatives to abortion.

Police in Lodi, Calif., threaten to arrest Pastor Jon Duncan for holding worship services.

In Colorado Springs, Pastor Rose Banks flouted the states stay-at-home order by holding regular Sunday services. When Gov. Jared Polis found out, he did the right thing. He updated his stay-at-home order, which contained an all-secular list of exceptions, to exempt houses of worship if they exercise extreme social distancing. The law gave him no real choice.The vast majority of religious leaders have suspended services voluntarily. All three Catholic dioceses in Colorado did so before the stay-at-home order. It was the right thing to do. Nearly all religions tell us to respect civil authority and make decisions in the best interests of our neighbors and society.

Everyone on American soil should exercise their civil liberties with self-restraint, for the sake of preserving them and maintaining social order. We have the right to sport swastika tattoos, but it does not mean we should.

While it is a good idea for churches to forgo gatherings until the virus runs its course, it cannot be a mandate. State officials cannot use the virus as a reason to punish a pastor for preaching or a grandfather for advocating abortion alternatives.

The law on this is clear. From the Law Library of Congress:

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments.

The First Amendment expressly prevents the government from interfering in the free exercise of religion. Although the freedom to assemble and communicate applies to all individuals and groups, the First Amendment does not single out abortion clinics or other businesses for protection. If the Constitution considers anything a critical gathering, it is one involving religion.

Nothing in the Constitution implies a virus exemption from the First and Fourteenth Amendments.Although Polis clearly understands and respects religious liberty, his colleagues in other states do not. They allow people to gather in the lobbies of abortion providers because elective abortions are critical, even though we must forgo other elective procedures to preserve masks, gowns and medical equipment for coronavirus patients.

If it is peaceable to assemble in the lobby of a clinic, it is peaceable to assemble for prayer outside.Stay-at-home orders exempt gatherings at pet stores as critical or essential. Commercial airline trips, in which people transfer the virus from one region to another: critical. Liquor stores: critical. Pot sales: critical.

Religious leaders should suspend services to help fight the virus, even for the highest Christian holiday of Easter. The state should recommend this action. It cannot force it, even in times of crisis. Doing so assaults the First Amendment.

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

More here:
No virus gets to kill the First Amendment - The Star Democrat

Photo by Ashley Dewey

In the first amendment, freedom of religion is in the top spot. But during this pandemic things have changed. The National Government has come and declared everyone should be social distancing and people should stay six feet away from people to stop the spread of the coronavirus, but for churchgoers, staying six feet apart is easier said than done.

In Tennessee, a pastor was calling for the governor to consider church essential.

It is disturbing to me how grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores, day care centers, etc. can be designated as essential businesses, yet churches and religious institutions are not part of the list of essential businesses, Bishop Alvin E. Miller wrote to Fox 17 in Nashville. How can churches and religious institutions not be classified as essential when our nation is fighting one of its greatest enemies since its existence?

On the other hand, there were protests in California and in Cincinnati, where people were driving by the services honking their horns and begging the churchgoers to stay because they are spreading the virus.

Here in Laramie, churches are doing their best to accommodate the regulations but also giving people their church services.

Harvest Church continues to minister in an online presence, phone calls, text and emails. We just had our first ever drive in church service for Easter and I believe people were blessed, said senior Pastor Bobby Calderon. I have encouraged and continue to encourage leaders to reach out to those they have relationship with in the church and make sure people are good and their needs are met. Mens ministry are continuing to meet via Webex Meet.

Pastor Calderon does express, though, that people can be safe and also be part of the church.

The church should continue to be disciples.Disciples are disciplined followers of Jesus. We need to continue/start to do the things God has called us to do.Pray, fast, believe and trust in God. Pray for our country and the world and hurting people.We need to pray Psalm 91, a psalm of protection over our lives. We need to pray Psalm 139:23-24 over ourselves too which is Search me O God and know my heart; Try me, and know my anxieties; And see if there is any wicked way in me, And lead me in the way everlasting. On Sundays, I would encourage people to get dressed and ready for church, gather their family and tune in online with expectancy in their hearts that God will move on their behalf.

Visit link:
First Amendment Issue or Safety Issue - The Branding Iron

Dissent and protest are protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These rights are fundamental to our democracy. They cannot be sacrificed even, and perhaps particularly, in times of public emergency.

On April 14, 2020, the police department in Raleigh, North Carolina, tweeted, Protesting is a non-essential activity, as an explanation for breaking up a protest. As organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and the First Amendment, the undersigned groups are deeply disturbed by this statement and other remarks and actions by public officials suggesting that peaceful protest can be outlawed during a national crisis. The ongoing Covid-19 pandemic cannot be used to justify the suspension of First Amendment rights. People must be free to express disagreement with government decisions, even when it involves criticism of essential public health measures.

Upholding First Amendment rights need not be at odds with the governments authority and obligation to protect public health and safety. The emergency decrees that call for social distancing, wearing of face covers or masks, and limits on the size of public assemblies can regulate the manner in which protests occur. However, regulations should be narrowly tailored to what is necessary to protect public health and cannot be so broad that they ban protest completely or so poorly drafted that they restrict peaceful demonstrations.

Most protesters have been exercising their constitutional rights without threatening the health of their fellow citizens: wearing masks and standing six-feet apart outside hospitals and other places of business to protest inadequate safety precautions; participating in car demonstrations in Arizona, California and Michigan, and launching digital campaigns.

Public officials in Ohio and Michigan have included explicit protections for First Amendment rights in their emergency decrees. Some states have also acknowledged information-gathering and reporting as essential services.

We urge all public officials to recognize their obligation to defend First Amendment rights while they protect public safety. These rights are critically important during uncertain times like these.

Co-signed:

National Coalition Against CensorshipAmerican Booksellers for Free ExpressionAmericans for Prosperity FoundationAssociation of American PublishersThe Authors GuildThe Buckeye InstituteCaesar Rodney InstituteThe Center for Media and DemocracyCivil Liberties Defense CenterCoalition for Policy ReformThe DKT Liberty ProjectDefending Rights & DissentFirst Amendment Lawyers AssociationFirstAmendment.comFree PressFree Speech CoalitionFreedom ForumFreedom Foundation of MinnesotaFreedom to Read FoundationIdaho Freedom FoundationInstitute for Free SpeechKurt Vonnegut Museum and LibraryMackinac Center for Public PolicyMississippi Center for Public PolicyPEN AmericaPEN America Childrens and Young Adult Books CommitteeRestore The Fourth, Inc.United for MissouriWoodhull Freedom FoundationDavid A. Schulz, Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School *institution listed for identification purposes only

Here is the original post:
The Right to Protest During the Pandemic - Blogging Censorship

A family in Oxford, Wisconsin, is suing the local sheriff's department after a patrol sergeant threatened to arrest a teenage girl for disorderly conduct for posting on Instagram about being infected with COVID-19.

Amyiah Cohoon, 16, is a student at Westfield Area High School in Westfield, Wisconsin. According to this lawsuit, she and schoolmates went to Disney World and Universal Studios in Florida for a spring break trip in early March, right as the coronavirus was beginning to spread and businesses began to shut down. She and her classmates canceled the trip early and returned home.

Once home, Cohoon began developing symptoms associated with COVID-19. She sought medical assistance, but at the time they were unable to test her to see if she was infected. She was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection with "symptoms consistent with COVID-19," according to the lawsuit.

Cohoon went home and posted on Instagram letting people know that she had COVID-19 and was in self-quarantine. Her condition worsened and she was brought to the hospital for treatment. She posted again about the experience on Instagram. Finally, they were able to test her, but the test came back negative. According to the lawsuit, doctors told her it was likely the missed the window for testing positive, but she probably did have COVID-19, despite the test results. (False negative results have been an ongoing issue in accurately diagnosing infections.)

After she returned home from this visit, she posted again on Instagram and included a picture of herself at the hospital wearing an oxygen mask.

The very next day, Patrol Sergeant Cameron Klump from Marquette County Sheriff's Department showed up on the family's doorstep. He was there under orders from Sheriff Joseph Konrath to demand that Amyiah and her father, Richard Cohoon, remove Amyiah's Instagram posts. If they refused, Klump said the family faced charges for disorderly conduct and Klump told them he would "start taking people to jail," according to the suit.

Konrath's justification was that there had been no confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the county. He found out about the Instagram post from Amyiah's high school. The Cohoon family had contacted the school to let them know about Amyiah's infection, but nobody ever contacted them back to get more information. It appears that instead the school contacted the police. Under the threat of arrest, Cohoon complied and deleted the allegedly illegal Instagram post.

That evening the family would discover that a school administrator sent out an alert to families accusing Cohoon of making it up and assuring families that any information of infection was just a rumor. "Let me assure you there is NO truth to this," the message read. "This was a foolish means to get attention and the source of the rumor has been addressed. This rumor had caught the attention of our Public Health Department and she was involved in putting a stop to this nonsense."

The family then connected with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, and the Institute sent a letter to Konrath warning him that he had violated Cohoon's First Amendment rights and demanded both an apology and the promise that there would be no further threats of criminal charges against the family for Amyiah's post.

Konrath refused, and now the Wisconsin Institute of Law and Liberty is suing Konrath and Klump in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for violating Cohoon's First and 14th Amendment rights. Her Instagram posts are protected speech, the Institute argues, and there was nothing about her posts that violated the county's disorderly conduct law, and even if they did, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that disorderly conduct statutes in the state cannot be applied to speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is asking the court to rule that Cohoon's posts were protected speech and order that the sheriff's department may not threaten or cite Cohoon or her family for these posts, plus paying "nominal damages."

The sheriff's department is not backing down or even acknowledging an overreaction. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, their position remains that the one negative test means that she did not have COVID-19, which simply isn't how it works. The Sentinel reports:

Sam Hall, an attorney for the sheriff, said the teenager "caused distress and panic" among other parents by claiming she had contracted the coronavirus despite getting a negative test result.

"This case is nothing more than a 2020 version of screaming fire in a crowded theater," he said, referring to speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.

That the sheriff's lawyer is misusing the much-maligned "fire in a crowded theater" argument from Schenck v. United States is a huge tell that these guys don't have a leg to stand on. It's a bad argument, a bad precedent (it was about censoring anti-war activism), and the Supreme Court has subsequently weakened that decision and broadened our free speech protections.

And even if that ruling remained relevant, Amyiah Cohoon was not engaging in the equivalent of "shouting fire in a crowded theater." Because of the significant number of false negative test results, it's appropriate for health staff to treat her as though she likely has COVID-19 based on her symptoms. It's also appropriate for the Cohoon family to attempt to warn families of the students who went with her to Florida that they might have been exposed, too.

It's the school officials and the police who behaved irresponsibly, not Amyiah or her family.

Read the complaint here.

Read the rest here:
A Teenager Posted About Her COVID-19 Infection on Instagram. A Deputy Threatened To Arrest Her If She Didn't Delete It. - Reason