Quantcast

Equal Justice

civil liberties 460We support the protection of our civil liberties under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have a particular focus on the First Amendment which embodies the liberty of free expression through speech and the media, freedom of religious belief and practice, freedom of political belief,  and the right for peaceful assembly to appeal to the government to modify policies and eradicate injustices.

We support the Second Amendment which protects our right to keep and bear arms and the Fourth Amendment which prevents the government from unreasonable search and seizure of our individual property.

While we acknowledge the equal protection clause under the 14th amendment which provides access to free public elementary and secondary school education for all US citizens and legal residents, we are also proponents of school choice which grants parents the ability to select the best educational option for their children including traditional public, public charter, parochial, private or home school.

In The News

645200 jpg 92 cE4S7O

Censorship And The Digital Public Square

Censorship And The Digital Public Square Authored by Adeline Von Drehle via RealClear Wire, “We don’t want no censorship, we don’t need no censorship!” Kevin Nathaniel’s voice boomed from the podium in front of the Supreme Court as he, frontman of the Spirit Drummers, led the crowd in a series of sing-songy, reggae-inspired chants. His audience was small but excitable. Some wore Kennedy ’24 beanies and “Ivermectin saves lives” T-shirts. Others showed off signs reading “Fauci is the tyrant the founding fathers warned us about,” and “Freedom of speech includes views you don’t like,” and “Media literacy = censorship,” as they bopped along to the bongo drums. Inside, the Supreme Court was gearing up to hear the oral arguments of Murthy v. Missouri, in which Missouri and Louisiana, as well as several individuals, claim that federal officials violated the First Amendment in their efforts to combat misinformation on social media. The parties contend that the Biden administration effectively coerced platforms into silencing the voices of American citizens, particularly those on the right who posted about the COVID-19 lab leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side effects, election fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story. The plaintiffs have called it a “sprawling Censorship Enterprise.” People live with different facts than their neighbors. One reason for this is social media algorithms, which use engagement features such as “like” buttons to feed users more of the content they seem to be interested in. Such a system can result in one person’s feed looking completely alien to another person. That we live in parallel universes is not news, but the dilemma it poses raises crucial questions about the responsibility of social media companies to track what is on their platforms and whether the government even has the right – or the responsibility – to counter

Read More »

Bugle Call