Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Court Ruling Could Nullify First Amendment
Godfather Politics ^ | August 20, 2013 | Gary DeMar

Posted on 08/21/2013 11:13:04 AM PDT by fwdude

Judge Michael Ponsor has ruled in Sexual Minorities Uganda v. Lively (2013) that Scott Lively, through his talks in Uganda in opposition to homosexual behavior was in fact “aiding and abetting a crime against humanity.”

Lively, an evangelical pastor, was sued in a Massachusetts federal court by a foreign group called Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG) based on provisions in the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). If this decision is upheld, every foreign group with a grievance will appeal to the ATS and inundate our courts with claims of injustice, and the First Amendment will not offer any protection.

Judge Posnor went on to write in his 79-page ruling that Lively’s anti-same-sex views can be compared “to that of an upper-level manager or leader of a criminal enterprise.” They are, according to Judge Ponsor, “analogous to a terrorist designing and manufacturing a bomb in this country, which he then mails to Uganda with the intent that it explode there.”

So speaking out against behaviors that only recently in the United States have been deemed lawful is akin to genocide?

We’ve seen this type of leftist logic before, and it’s not surprising that it came from a judge who was supported for the bench by John Kerry and Ted Kennedy and appointed by Bill Clinton. Soon after Timothy McVeigh bombed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in April of 1995, some on the left of the political spectrum blamed “anti-government rhetoric” for the assault. Supposedly “hateful” speech directed at politicians had incited a cadre of “right-wing” extremists to put words into explosive action.

A similar blame-game tactic was tried by then Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) after the loss of the Senate to the Republicans in the 2002 mid-term elections. He blamed “talk radio,” and compared American “fundamentalists” to Islamic extremists. He claimed that critical talk about certain politicians and their policies could lead to a hostile environment that could spur people to violent acts. Daschle offered no empirical evidence to back up his claim.

On the 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, former President Clinton once again tried to make the connection between speech and domestic terrorism. The following is the reaction from a New York Post editorial:

“[Clinton drew] implicit parallels between bomber Timothy McVeigh and peaceful — if rambunctious — political dissent like the Tea Party movement. … Like we said: shameless.”

What about Judge Ponsor’s claim that speaking out against homosexual behavior is akin to “aiding and abetting a crime against humanity”? Is there such a thing in the world today? We kill about 1.2 million pre-born babies in America each year, but this is not a crime against humanity.

Texas State Senator Wendy Davis gets a multi-page spread in Vogue because she spoke passionately in defense of permitting the killing of late term pre-born babies.

“The article makes no mention of how, during a speech and press conference last week, Davis called abortion ‘sacred ground’ and indicated she may run for governor. Later, she indicated she thinks pro-life women ‘don’t understand’ abortion and she showed she has no understanding of the Kermit Gosnell case.”

Nothing is said about how the Southern Poverty Law Center’s claim that Family Research Council is a hate group influenced a pro-homosexual man to shoot up the organization and kill the employees.

Maybe we can deduce that President Obama’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood rhetoric has led to the destruction of Christian churches in Egypt and the persecution of Christians.

“Across Egypt, at least 60 churches have been targeted, along with Christian schools, homes,businesses and even an orphanage, according to conservative estimates. In the areas of Minya, Beni Suef, Fayoum and Assiut, Christian homes and businesses have received leaflets warning them to leave or face reprisals by Islamists, Christians said.”

A man speaks about the immorality of certain sex acts, and he’s “aiding and abetting a crime against humanity”? Judge Posnor’s ruling, if it stands on appeal, is one of the most dangerous decisions ever to come from the bench.

“The Liberty Counsel has insisted that Lively exercised ‘nothing more than civil, non-violent political discourse in the public square on a subject of great public concern, which occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection.’”

If higher courts on appeal disagree, the days of free speech for conservatives are over.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12222/new-court-ruling-could-nullify-first-amendment/#mMX2kIGJEGHzMEaL.99


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; homosexualagenda
Be sure to fully absorb this chilling statement from Ponsor:

They [Pastor Lively's beliefs] are, according to Judge Ponsor, “analogous to a terrorist designing and manufacturing a bomb in this country, which he then mails to Uganda with the intent that it explode there.”

1 posted on 08/21/2013 11:13:04 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fwdude
This is the corruption that the ACLU has achieved in some of our Federal Courts by incrementally undermining the obvious import of the First Amendment:

For a serious discussion of the process, see Leftwing Word Games & Religious Freedom.

If nothing else, it points up how critical it is for the Senate to carefully examine judicial appointments.

William Flax

2 posted on 08/21/2013 11:18:44 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
Sexual Minorities of Uganda (SMUG)

I seem to recall from Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man that "smugging" was boarding-school slang for sodomy-related activities. Adorable as always, those poofter groups.

And by the way, no ruling by a court can nullify the First Amendment. But the First Amendment can, and will, nullify many a court. Let the games begin.

3 posted on 08/21/2013 11:18:57 AM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Mohammed was a Child Rapist.

Bears repeating every time someone tries to shut down the First Amendment.


4 posted on 08/21/2013 11:19:13 AM PDT by Uncle Miltie (Where's my pressure cooker backpack wmd ricin laced al qaeda terrorist BASSELOPE?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Judge Michael Ponsor needs to be tarred and feathered and then run out of town on a rail as the enemy of liberty he is declaring himself to be.


5 posted on 08/21/2013 11:20:05 AM PDT by MeganC (A gun is like a parachute. If you need one, and don't have one, you'll never need one again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

He’s a BillyBob appointee.That explains everything.


6 posted on 08/21/2013 11:24:33 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

A link to the Judge’s written opinion would be helpful.


7 posted on 08/21/2013 11:27:16 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamuraiScot
And by the way, no ruling by a court can nullify the First Amendment.

No court can do so in a way that's akin to actual repeal...a repeal lawfully carried out in the way set forth in the Constitution itself.But at least one court can so so in a defacto fashion.And if Osama Obama gets many more shots at nominating a SCOTUS justice that *will* happen *much* sooner rather than later.

8 posted on 08/21/2013 11:30:23 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (If Obama Had A City It Would Look Like Detroit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

I did a legal internship with Liberty Counsel. They are good people with a good track record of winning First Amendment cases. With them in his corner, Lively has an excellent chance of surviving this challenge.

BTW, their business model relies mostly on supporter contributions for certain high profile, hgh impact cases, like this one, so they can put up a good fight even if the client is stone cold broke. Something to thnk about if you have any loose change floating around. It’s one thing to do verbal battle with the defeatist trolls that inhabit these parts, but it takes real money to wage an effective legal battle, even for a good cause like this. Just sayin ...


9 posted on 08/21/2013 11:35:02 AM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

This judge should be disbarred. I guess that all practicing Catholics including the Pope are also committing sins against humanity. What a schmuck!


10 posted on 08/21/2013 11:35:07 AM PDT by Inwoodian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one. Speaking out in a way that incites a riot is another.

Back in 1992 I supported, and still support, the idea that Maxine Waters and others should have been held criminally responsible for her part in inciting the Rodney King riots. The same is true for Al Sharpton and the Freddies Fashion Mart murder.

Had there been Trayvon Martin riots last month I would have supported arresting Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and many others on the Left (including in the press) for incitement.

So this Lively situation needs more context and details. If he was actively drumming up violence he should be held accountable for any repercussions. Emphasis on “actively”, of course.


11 posted on 08/21/2013 11:35:17 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Since this is a case under the Alien Torts Statute then I highly doubt the First Amendment applies/is relevant.


12 posted on 08/21/2013 11:35:26 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

This article is deceiving. There is no ruling yet.

The case HAS NOT even gone to trial.

*****************

While noting that SMUG’s allegations must be proved at trial, Judge Ponsor wrote in his decision that “they are sufficient, as allegations, to state a claim for the commission of a crime against humanity against” Lively. He referred the case to Magistrate Judge Kenneth P. Neiman for pretrial scheduling.

*****************

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-evangelist-scott-livelys-lawsuit-for-persecution-against-ugandan-gays-goes-forward-102449/


13 posted on 08/21/2013 11:38:04 AM PDT by Alex in chains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

The Republican House of Representatives should impeach the judge for this ruling because it is clearly in violation of the words and intent of the Constitution. To rule in this manner indicates he is incompetent and a danger to the Republic.

This would be a terrific issue for the Republican House to throw at the Democrat Senate. Impeach this judge for this atrocity and any more anti-Constitution far left rulings he has made since arriving on the bench. Put Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate in a position of defending a judge for acting directly against the fundamental freedoms. Let the left wing media howl. Demonstrate to the people the Republican Party supports the Constitution and individual freedom.

The GOP has been cowering in the corner for 5 years. Either get on the offensive and get the electorate stirred up or accept the boundaries placed on the opposition by the media and the Democrats.

Unfortunately, Boehner doesn’t have the leadership ability to take on this type of reasonable defense of the Constitution, must less the guts to stand up to the inevitable media storm the impeachment of a leftist judge would provoke.

The hour is becoming late. If the GOP doesn’t take a stand for freedom soon, there will be nothing to defend.


14 posted on 08/21/2013 11:41:06 AM PDT by Soul of the South (Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
I saw nowhere that Mr. Lively physically did anything to anyone nor did he have the authority to order anyone to commit any physical act of violence. This egregious judicial activism needs to be taken as high as necessary to have it ruled not only invalid but a case of malicious action by the attorney bringing the case before the court.
15 posted on 08/21/2013 11:54:19 AM PDT by Pecos (Kritarchy: government by the judges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

“There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one.”

Unless there is a fire, I suppose? Rodney King? I was working nights, and saw the first time the video “beating” was aired. Quite different from what aired a couple hours later!


16 posted on 08/21/2013 12:25:36 PM PDT by Dr. Bogus Pachysandra ( Ya can't pick up a turd by the clean end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Those are excellent examples. And yes, we definitely need more information.


17 posted on 08/21/2013 12:26:09 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Here’s something I picked up on ATS Wikipedia:

“...This statute is notable for having allowed U.S. courts to hear human-rights cases brought by foreign citizens for conduct committed outside the United States. However the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the Alien Tort Statute does not apply to corporate defendants nor conduct which occurred outside of the United States, in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.[1]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_Tort_Statute

It’s hard to believe this will go much further, since Lively was in Uganda. I wonder if his ministry is incorporated.


18 posted on 08/21/2013 12:29:56 PM PDT by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Miltie

mohammed was also possessed by demons, when he wrote sections of the koran, by his own admission in the text.


19 posted on 08/21/2013 12:50:07 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; Not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gdani; tsomer

Agreed. The Fed judge is just disregarding the new SCOTUS decision, but it really does cut the legs out from under SMUG’s jurisdictional argument. What the Ugandan parliament decides to do legislatively after taking testimony from a US evangelist is between Ugandan leadership and their people, at least as far as our judiciary is concerned. Especially when Lively argued for greater leniency than what that parliament finally came up with.


20 posted on 08/21/2013 12:56:24 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gdani; tsomer

My agreement is not with gdani but tsomer. My apologies for reversing the order, although I am sure it was clear by the end of the post anyway.


21 posted on 08/21/2013 12:58:42 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

A link to the opinion is available in the first sentence of the article’s source page, but here is the URL:

http://ccrjustice.org/files/SMUG_OrderDenyingDefMTD_08_13.pdf


22 posted on 08/21/2013 1:16:53 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Springfield Reformer

Yes, I give to Liberty Counsel regularly, knowing they do good work. The rage of the sodomites against them is proof.


23 posted on 08/21/2013 1:23:30 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Alex in chains
The case HAS NOT even gone to trial.

The trail has already taken place and sentence rendered in Posner's warped mind. Read his opinion. It oozes with contempt for Lively and contains all of the invented homo-fascist empty talking points.

24 posted on 08/21/2013 1:26:25 PM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Right you are. The opinion is not work of a sober, impartial judge. It is the argument of a zealot.


25 posted on 08/21/2013 1:39:16 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

Judge Michael Ponsor needs to be tarred and feathered and then run out of town on a rail as the enemy of liberty he is declaring himself to be.


nominated by BJ Clinton...


26 posted on 08/21/2013 1:43:01 PM PDT by Rumplemeyer (The GOP should stand its ground - and fix Bayonets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gdani; tsomer

One further point. Assume for the sake of argument ATS applied (which I do not believe is the case). The interaction between tort law and constitutional law is not one of artificial compartmentalization, but of seamless integration. An American citizen, at least in theory, cannot be condemned in tort *by an American court* for exercising a fundamental constitutional right, even if such action is disapproved by a foreign or international body of law.

Furthermore, it is a given that Ugandan law is not the issue, i.e., has not been breached by Lively. The only possible basis is international law, which is basically treaty law, including any relevant UN agreements or “understandings,” and so falls under the precedent of Reid v Covert and similar such cases, which have uniformly recognized positive, fundamental constitutional rights as superior to and unaffected by treaty.

So you can’t keep free speech out of it. Tort law requires there to be a duty, a breach of that duty, and a causal, legally proximate relationship between that breach of duty and some real harm in consequence. For Americans under the First Amendment, there is no duty to hide one’s viewpoint due to hypothetical harms that may or may not result. Falsely shouting “fire” in a theatre is not expression of a viewpoint, but a reckless or perhaps malicious misrepresentation of physical facts. Stating that a government should discourage social and legal accommodation with homosexuality, on whatever grounds, is viewpoint expression, and that is protected, and could never be reasonably considered a breach of duty under tort.


27 posted on 08/21/2013 1:43:15 PM PDT by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Looks like an another attempt to extend the notion of vicarious liability. The allusion to RICO by this judge is interesting. Sure, that law was used to bring down the Italian Mob, so people think it’s a good thing and necessary tool for law enforcement. There have been unintended consequences that have had huge detriment to liberty, and more only now manifesting.

Day by day, the metaphors of the slippery slope and the camel’s nose become more obviously true.


28 posted on 08/21/2013 3:00:25 PM PDT by Dr.Deth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
There are limits to the 1st Amendment. Not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is one. Speaking out in a way that incites a riot is another.

You are wrong. The 1st Amendment is a restriction on Congress.
The crowded theater scenario was part of a USSC ruling regarding the first amendment basically saying that the it doesn't absolutely constrain congress. This was in order to justify prosecution of anti-draft literature/fliers in WWI, which is exactly the sort of political speech the founding fathers had in mind. — Basically this ruling is the same thing that Wickard was: refusal to smack down an overreaching Congress.

29 posted on 08/21/2013 8:01:51 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson