Free Speech

Partisan Hypocrisy on Display in Supreme Court Ruling on Anti-Prostitution Pledge and the First Amendment

Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.

|

Foreign groups that receive American funding to fight HIV and AIDS must still pledge to oppose sex work, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the requirement. A similar requirement for U.S. nonprofits was struck down as unconstitutional in 2013.

In the recent case, United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., U.S. groups whose international affiliates must still abide by the rule sought to have it overturned, too, arguing that compelling anti-prostitution speech from these foreign affiliates was attributed to the American groups and therefore violated their First Amendment rights.

But in a 5-3 decision, the Court rejected their plea.

"In short, plaintiffs' foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority's opinion. While anti-prostitution statements "may be incorrectly attributed to the American organizations," these groups "are free to choose whether to affiliate with foreign organizations and are free to disclaim agreement with the foreign affiliates' required statement of policy."

Also siding in favor of the law were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.

In a dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor suggest that the court "asks the wrong question and gives the wrong answer. This case is not about the First Amendment rights of foreign organizations. It is about—and has always been about—the First Amendment rights of American organizations."

"The last time this case came before us," writes Breyer, "we held that the First Amendment forbids the Government from distorting their speech by requiring, as a condition of receiving federal funds, that they 'pledge allegiance' to a state-sponsored message. This time, the question is whether the American organizations enjoy that same constitutional protection against government-compelled distortion when they speak through clearly identified affiliates that have been incorporated overseas. The answer to that question, as I see it, is yes."

"Just as compelling a clearly identified domestic affiliate to espouse a government message distorts respondents' own protected speech, so too does compelling a
clearly identified foreign affiliate to espouse the same government message," adds Breyer, rejecting the majority's suggestion that American affiliates suffered no harm by simply contradicting the compelled messages put forth by foreign affiliates.

"When the Government demands as a condition of federal funding that their clearly identified affiliate 'espouse a specific belief as its own,' respondents may express a contrary view through some other corporate channel only on pain of appearing
hypocritical," he writes. "Leveraging Congress' Article I spending power to distort respondents' protected speech in this way therefore violates respondents' First Amendment rights—whatever else might be said about the affiliate's own First
Amendment rights (or asserted lack thereof )."

It's easy to imagine the conservative justices in this case coming to the same conclusion as Breyer if the compelled speech were of a different variety.

Republicans have (rightfully) objected to, for instance, a California law compelling crisis pregnancy centers that oppose abortion to display messages about where women could get an abortion. Would that suddenly be OK if the California centers themselves were excluded but any international anti-abortion groups they partnered with to help pregnant women in need were still compelled to advertise abortion services?

It's interesting to note that in 2018 when the Supreme Court decided that California's compelled speech law was indeed unconstitutional, Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Roberts all agreed with that assessment. Meanwhile, the three justices now opposing the prostitution pledge on First Amendment grounds—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor—all said that California's crisis pregnancy center speech law should be upheld.

Wouldn't it be nice if our Supreme Court justices could maintain the same respect for free speech and the First Amendment regardless of what subject that speech was about?

For now, however, it looks like the only way to remedy America's rule requiring groups to denounce prostitution is for Congress to once again take up the issue.

NEXT: Supreme Court Declares Another Abortion Law Unconstitutional

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority’s opinion.

    I don’t see anything in the First Amendment that agrees with this statement. Did Congress make a law? Did that law abridge free speech? If so, then it violates the First Amendment.

    1. Let us start at the beginning; “We, the people of the United States”
      Exactly which foreign corporations does that include?
      Please be specific.

      1. This is why she wants to allow all foreigners and corporations into the US without even inspection. Then anyone can be funded.

        1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

          Heres what I do…………………..Home Profit System

      2. “All men are created equal.”
        If natural rights exist, and the constitution merely recognizes their existence, what is the moral justification to claim that non-citizens don’t have them? Seems to me that if they apply only to US citizens, they are priveleges, not rights.

        1. Who cares what some hypocritical slave owner wrote in some over wrought propaganda piece. Is the battle hymn of the republic consulted for constitutional meaning?

        2. That’s a great rundown of natural rights, which should have a court like the Constitution does.

        3. Let’s extend that logic. Natural rights exist and murder is bad. Does that mean that US courts have a proper role in prosecuting every murder in every country around the world? Even people who think the US should be the World’s Policeman don’t go that far.

          So back to the case at hand, what right do foreign corporations operating overseas have to demand access to US courts? The aid organizations deliberately decided to split their operations with foreign and domestic arms. There are advantages and disadvantages to that business decision. This is one of the disadvantages.

          1. By the way, I think the law that Congress passed is bad policy and counter-productive. But I have to agree with the Court that it’s Congress’ job to fix, not something for the Court to unilaterally decide. If the plaintiffs had spent half the money lobbying Congress that they spent fighting this case, the law would probably already be changed.

          2. Pushing people down a slippery slope won’t add credence to your argument.

            All people have rights, if they choose to exercises their rights within the jurisdictional boundaries of the USA they are protected by the US Constitution. That means they have the right to seek redress for grievances, speak their minds, defend themselves and keep what they earn as property.

            Outside of the boundaries of the USA everyone – even US citizens – take their chances by acting on their natural rights. That’s how the world works.

        4. US courts only protect the rights of US *persons* (which is more expansive than US citizens alone and includes, for example, non-diplomatically immune foreign citizens legally on US soil). I would think that would be obvious. Are you some kind of imperialist?

      3. “”””Let us start at the beginning; “We, the people of the United States”””

        Sure, but 1A says Congress shall make no law. It’s a restriction on government. That restriction does not change just because foreigners benefit.

        1. That’s true, but the 1st amendment doesn’t say Congress can’t pay somebody to say something, now, does it?

          It would be different if the organizations in question had any right at all to the money, but they don’t. So this isn’t an unconstitutional condition on receipt of money they’re entitled to, it’s part of what they’re being paid the money for doing.

          1. That’s true, but the 1st amendment doesn’t say Congress can’t pay somebody to say something, now, does it?

            Correct, but that has no bearing on Kavanaugh’s statement, which is the majority opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, who can’t fucking read plain English.

            1. Oh they can read it, they just don’t care. It is ALL about their agenda.

          2. So the government can do anything so long as it doesn’t specifically say so in any amendment…

          3. This. “We’re supplying the skrilla, we get to tell you what to say”. End of line.

        2. this is obvious to all free thinkers

        3. Sure, but 1A says Congress shall make no law. It’s a restriction on government.

          Well said.

          That restriction does not change just because foreigners benefit.

          I think we should be much more circumspect about that assertion than the rest of your post.

      4. Wait, are you saying our rights aren’t human rights? That they’re granted by government and so government can choose when and where it will uphold those rights?

        1. He could just be talking about jurisdiction. The court doesn’t rule on natural rights.

      5. We the people of the United States say … Congress shall make no law.

        Learn to fucking read. Then go teach SCOTUS.

        1. Congress has, as have all the states, passed numerous laws abridging the freedom of speech. Slander being just one.
          The First Amendment is not an absolute.
          The difference, though not brought out in the article is that the speech in the case before the court was an affirmation that these organizations would not break certain US laws. The corollary about the California law was that the speech there didn’t advocate actions that violate any law.

      6. The companies are AMERICAN using foreign affiliates.

      7. If the principle is the right is inherent in you from your creator, prior to the creation of any government, that includes everybody, not just the United States.

    2. You can’t possibly be that stupid. Next time do a better job when making a point.

      1. Another one that can’t read.

    3. Foreigners in foreign countries are not protected by the US constitution, and have no right to US taxpayer money.

      Duh.

      If foreigners want US money, they’ll dance our jig and like it.

  2. The Libertarian case for for funding international NGOs.

    1. ENB long ago removed her mask as a libertarian.

      Shocked age couldnt find a Vox quote to use, namely Yglesias.

    2. The federal government should not be sending any money to foreign organizations. That is true. However, if it does, and it currently is, it should not be restricting free speech.

      It’s a similar argument to gay marriage. The government should not be in the marriage license business. However, it is. Since it will not stop handling marriage licenses, the government should not discriminate based on gender.

      1. This is nonsensical. Why shouldn’t the US put contingencies on money it pays? It isn’t restricting a foreign NGO from speaking. It is just saying “If we don’t like your speech, we won’t give you our money.”

        Is it a restriction of speech for USAID not to fund some anti-american marxist movement?

  3. The real problem is not this tempest in a teapot, but passing out taxpayer money in the first place, to foreigners in the second place, and for such specific objectives in the third place. Only then does the fourth place freedom of speech for foreigners become a concern.

    1. ^ Certainly agree with this.

      But it is troubling that the Supremes seem to think that “Congress shall make no law…” somehow only applies to US citizens. Even the liberal justices didn’t seem to challenge that notion, at least based on the summary presented here.

      1. I could understand the pre-14th amendment cop-out that “Congress shall make no law” didn’t apply to the states. I did not understand the disgusting Slaughterhouse betrayal of the 14th Amendment P&I. I barely comprehend the stare-decisis workaround of substantive due process incorporation of most P&I.

        Maybe the clowns think the BoR haven’t been incorporated against foreigners. Heaven knows they’ve used a ton of cop-outs for other decisions.

        1. Even if not incorporated against the state governments, I can hardly see how the words “Congress shall make no law…” can mean that Congress can make laws compelling speech from foreign organizations.

          I find it hard to describe any justice (I’m looking at you Gorsuch) as libertarian when they are essentially saying that rights are established by a government document.

          1. I should expand my last point. The BoR doesn’t grant us rights. It specifically limits governments from infringing on our natural rights.

            1. Yes, but …. governments are instituted to secure those rights, which implies for the people who instituted that government. Once you deem it proper for government to secure rights for foreigners by not passing laws, the next step is passing laws securing, as opposed to forbidding laws abridging, those rights, and next comes war when the foreigners’ governments object to this outside interference.

              1. Government securing my rights does not preclude it from respecting that those rights also apply to foreigners, even if their own governments aren’t securing their rights.

                Once you deem it proper for government to secure rights for foreigners by not passing laws, the next step is passing laws securing… those rights

                Why is this the next step? It’s enough for our government to be bound by our own Constitution. They have no obligation or authority to impose our ideals onto foreign jurisdictions. But inasmuch as they are creating federal programs with foreign outreach, they should be bound by their contract with the American people to not restrict anyone’s speech.

                1. Because statists are ALWAYS looking to expand their reach.

                  1. I am serious. Once you put it into statists’ heads that tehy don’t get to restrict free speech for foreigners, some will deliberately misconstrue that to mean they have to actively help foreigners secure their freedom of speech, and some dimwit will find he needs to restore freedom of speech in, oh I dunno, Granada, and off we go in yet another foreign war.

                    1. That seems like a completely different issue, though, to me. If and when it comes to that, we should oppose it.

                    2. That seems like a completely different issue, though, to me.

                      Then you should read the ruling because you’re wrong.

                    3. Then you should read the ruling

                      Can you point me to the specific points in the ruling that you’re referring to?

                    4. I already did.

          2. Weird that you don’t have the “congress shall make no law” objection to section 230.
            A bit inconsistent

            1. Section 230 doesn’t limit free speech. Try to keep up.

              1. The Constitution doesnt apply to foreign governments or citizens.

                Try to keep up.

                1. I never said it did. But it certainly applies to Congress and forbids them from doing what they did, which is make a law that compels speech.

                  1. Except the court expicity said you are wrong

                    “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                2. The Constitution doesn’t let Congress abridge freedom of speech, domestic or foreign.

                  No one is claiming the Constitution grants Congress power over foreign governments or citizens. The claim is that Congress doesn’t get to restrict their natural human rights either; that the Constitution specifically does not grant that power.

                  1. The Constitution doesn’t let Congress abridge freedom of speech, domestic or foreign.

                    And you were told you were wrong.

                    “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    1. And (regardless of any other fact in this particular case) is 100% wrong.

                  2. The claim is that Congress doesn’t get to restrict their natural human rights either;

                    And the court said that was wrong too.

                    In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                3. That’s true, but the 1st amendment doesn’t say Congress can’t pay somebody to say something, now, does it?

                  Right. It only applies to the federal and state governments of the US. It’s the law that they have to follow (but don’t).

      2. But it is troubling that the Supremes seem to think that “Congress shall make no law…” somehow only applies to US citizens.

        Jurisdiction is troubling?

        You see some sinister intent. It could just as easily be acknowledging that the Constitution cannot apply in certain cases because of jurisdiction.

        1. The US Congress is fully within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This case is about whether a law they passed which compels speech is Constitutional. It’s not about whether or not some foreign organization (outside its jurisdiction) behaved appropriately.

          1. The US Congress is fully within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

            Foreign locations, citizens and legal apparatus are not however, so your point is moot.

            This case is about whether a law they passed which compels speech is Constitutional

            I see you’rs going to do that thing where you pretend it’s only about the things you want it to be about despite the court clearly and distinctly saying otherwise.

            “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

            Sorry. You don’t get to ignore that.

            1. I didn’t ignore that. I refuted it. We don’t have rights because of the first amendment. I wouldn’t expect a conservative like Kavanaugh to acknowledge that, but a supposed libertarian like Gorsuch should. Our country was founded upon the idea that our rights transcend government.

              1A is a limit on government action. It doesn’t grant you any rights. It starts with “Congress shall make no law” for a reason. The notion that the BoR establishes rights is extremely dangerous because it could simply be amended away with a 2/3 and 3/4 majority.

              1. I didn’t ignore that. I refuted it

                No you ignored it and discussed Congress. And now you realize you were wrong.

                We don’t have rights because of the first amendment.

                THE COURT RULES BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION NOT ON CONCEPTS OF NATURAL RIGHTS.

                And RIGHT THERE you have the court telling you that the 1st does not apply I.e. NO JURISDICTION.

                You’re conflating natural rights with court rulings on the APPLICABILITY OF THE CONSTITUTION. Either because you’re ignorant or you find it necessary to change the subject away from ConLaw to something you think you understand.

                1A is a limit on government action

                And as you were told by Kavanaugh, the court thinks it doesn’t apply in some cases.

                God man you don’t even understand what you’re discussing.

                1. This is a blond spot for some people, and I myself admit to it from time to time. It is difficult for people steeped in the discussion of natural rights to divorce themselves from that when faced with discussion of Court cases which are decided on law, not the concept of natural rights.

                  1. Haha I meant *blind* spot but that works as well.

                  2. I get it. What I don’t get is why, when directly confronted by the reasoning of the Majority, someone like Leo simply waves it away because he is hyperfocused on natural rights.

                    My original point was about jurisdiction. The article and decision support my position, not Leo’s.

                    1. Not sure why we can’t have a discussion without immediately going to ad hominem, other than you’re probably Tulpa.

                      Let me say it again, regardless of what Kavanaugh says. The plain text of the first amendment states clearly that “Congress shall make no law… bridging the freedom of speech.” So answer these questions:

                      1. Did Congress make a law that compelled speech?
                      2. Is Congress within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

                      My argument is yes to both questions. They violated 1A.

                    2. Let me say it again

                      Don’t bother it hasnt stopped being wrong from the first time.

                      regardless of what Kavanaugh says

                      See thats the thing. He and his colleagues ARE the decider, so no NOT regardless.

                      Not sure why we can’t have a discussion without immediately going to ad hominem, other than you’re probably Tulpa.

                      Because you claimed to refute something that you didn’t then literally said you didnt care what the final authority on the subject said, because you were right.

                      That’s stupid. So you get treated like you’re stupid.

                    3. No I absolutely did not treat Leo like he was stupid. Ignorant yes, stubborn and intractable yes, but not stupid.

                      But there is something particularly galling about someone arguing with the Supreme Court anout their jurisdiction, when the Court specifies that it is not their jurisdiction. That’s childish of him and if Leo thinks that’s an ad hom that is fine, I don’t need to hear him say ” I don’t care what the Supreme Court justices say, I am right” any more anyway.

                    4. My argument is yes to both questions. They violated 1A.

                      And you were told you were wrong.

                      “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                    5. See thats the thing. He and his colleagues ARE the decider, so no NOT regardless.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

                    6. You realize that an argument from authority is not automatically fallacious?

                      Now did you have anything else or are you done being wrong?

                    7. Thats not even an appeal to authority so Leo is wrong again.

                    8. Hush Leo thought he had a gotcha when he linked to something he didn’t understand and then continued to argue that the Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of their own jurisdiction.

                      Dsspite that of course BEING IN THE CONSTITUTION.

                    9. My argument is yes to both questions. They violated 1A.

                      And you were told you were wrong.

                      “In short, plaintiffs’ foreign affiliates are foreign organizations, and foreign organizations operating abroad have no First Amendment rights,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                      Kavanaugh didn’t address my question at all. My point has nothing to do with whether anybody has a 1A right. My point is that Congress is forbidden from enacting laws that limit or compel speech.

                      I understand what Kavanaugh is saying, but I certainly don’t agree with it. It shouldn’t be about whether I have a right or not. It should be about whether Congress has the authority to do what 1A forbids them to do. I say that Congress violated 1A, Kavanaugh says the plaintiffs don’t have a right. The distinction between our two positions is whether 1A is a right given to the people (Kavanaugh’s position) or a limit on Congress (my position).

                      We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one and anyone who reads our debate can make their own decision. That’s how debate works. Have a good evening.

                    10. Kavanaugh didn’t address my question at all. My point has nothing to do with whether anybody has a 1A right. My point is that Congress is forbidden from enacting laws that limit or compel speech.

                      And that restriction would be impelmented by…1a. Which you just said has nothing to do with this. And which Kavanaugh addressed but you forst disagreed woth THEN claimed was inapplicable.

                      As I said, you dont even undestand what you’re discussing.

                    11. but I certainly don’t agree with it.

                      I don’t care.

                    12. Yes Leo run away, you finally saw that saying the Supreme Court can’t judge the limits of its own authority was a retarded claim.

                2. And as you were told by Kavanaugh, the court thinks it doesn’t apply in some cases.

                  Good for Kavanaugh. Do you expect me to agree with everything he says?

                  1. No I expect you to be a salty little bitch even though the original point

                    It could just as easily be acknowledging that the Constitution cannot apply in certain cases because of jurisdiction.

                    is fully supported by the text of the decision.

                    Oh I was right. You got salty. Even though on the points you made I fundamentally agree.

                    1. One way to judge arguments is who stoops to personal insults. You got there first. You win the loser role.

                    2. I appreciate and accept that you have silly criteria for your decisions.

                    3. Another way to judge arguments is when you expressly disagree with the stated decisions of the legally implemented deciding body, and then say you don’t care what that body says you’re still right.

                      That’s a loser.

                  2. Do you expect me to agree with everything he says?

                    It doesn’t matter what you agree with.

      3. “Congress shall make no law…” somehow only applies to US citizens.

        So, when the FF wrote the word ‘Congress’ they didn’t mean ‘The Congress Of The United States’, they meant ‘No Congress on God’s Earth’.

        If you lying asshats didn’t have thoroughly compromised principles, you’d have no principles at all.

  4. Slightly off topic; does the tape count as a “mask” for Communist Chinese Virus purposes?

  5. Government often conditions aid inclusively of recipients other actions. This isnt a free speech issue. Nobody is entitled to government grants.

    1. Whether and when anybody is entitled to government grants is a matter of law. Can the gov compel speech as a condition of receiving welfare benefits? I bet not, on 1st amendment grounds.

      1. Well, they compel, under oath, speech in the case of unemployment benefits. You have to swear you are available for work, and actively seeking work, with a few disability-type exceptions.
        Most other welfare benefits require statements under oath about income, living conditions, etc.
        Unless you mean ‘political’ speech, as defined by views agreed with or not based on the current administration?

    2. The Supremes already ruled this would be a First Amendment issue if it were domestic aid. Where does being foreign aid get around that?

      1. Read the ruling fuckwit.

  6. The analogy doesn’t appear valid; Both getting (Regrettably!) and refraining from an abortion are lawful conduct, but sex work generally isn’t, though there are local exceptions.

    Further, crisis pregnancy centers are, for the most part, just engaging in speech, and doing so on their own dime, while the organizations here are asking to be funded. So the California law was compelling speech as a condition of doing something the groups had a constitutional right to do, while no foreign organization can ever have a constitutional right to US funding.

    So I don’t really see where the analogy holds, if anything it runs in the opposite direction.

  7. John said something yesterday about the SC maintaining status quo for the Elites – if it doesn’t matter to them, fuck it. danke for the redhead

  8. This case is tricky because it’s about foreign affiliation. I am 100% against compelled speech so I’m tempted to be critical of this ruling. But I’m not sure if its a precedent or contagion that would spread.

    I am glad to see the ‘liberal’ side of the court rail against compelled speech though.

    1. I don’t think it qualifies as “compelled” speech, because they have no right at all to the money, and are free to turn it down if they don’t like the conditions attached.

      Basically they’re being paid to “fight HIV and oppose sex work”. They’d rather be paid to “fight HIV”, but that job’s not on offer.

    2. This case is tricky because it’s about foreign affiliation. I am 100% against compelled speech so I’m tempted to be critical of this ruling. But I’m not sure if its a precedent or contagion that would spread.

      IMO, the ‘foreign’ aspect rules the 1A null and void on a lot of different counts and ENB acting like we should give money without any strings attached to people who aren’t protected by the 1A is stupid as shit.

      I think the sex work bullshit is a ruse too. Sex work in places that need HIV aid is not the same as sex work on pornhub. A lot of the reason it’s that way has precisely dick to do with the US government.

      If we offer aid to Iran are we not supposed to attach conditions about calls for violence because of the 1A? Meanwhile the Biden family can undeniably use foreign aid to secure jobs? Fuck that goddamned noise.

      Words fail the despise I feel for ENB right now.

  9. Wouldn’t it be nice if our Supreme Court justices could maintain the same respect for free speech and the First Amendment regardless of what subject that speech was about?

    AHAHAHAHAHAHA (breath) AHAHAHAHHAHA

    Disappointing from Gorsuch, I’m not going to lie. The 1A has no citizenship clause. “Congress shall make no law” is pretty easy to interpret. The rule of law is a myth.

  10. Free speech for the masse?
    Never!
    We are fortunate to have a large number of well indoctrinated elites to do our thinking and speaking or us, thank you very much.
    Free speech only creates confusion and chaos among the great unwashed not to mention fear and apprehension to our enlightened betters who take the time and trouble to oppress us daily.
    We must always be on constant guard the cancer of unfettered speech if we are to live in a true free socialist utopia.
    So report anyone who has the temerity to say what they think to your local Thought Police station so we can all get on with our meaningless lives and serve our obvious betters the best we can.

  11. “Foreign groups that receive American funding to fight HIV and AIDS must still pledge to oppose sex work, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in favor of the requirement.”

    Requiring people to make this pledge doesn’t appear to be any more coercive than requiring anyone to obligate themselves to anything in a contract. If you don’t want taxpayer money, do what you want to do without it!

    Do you really mean to suggest that people shouldn’t be obligated–in contracts they willingly sign–to say things because of the First Amendment? If so, that’s absurd.

    Your support for prostitution doesn’t justify ignoring anything and everything–including common sense–that gets in your way. Has anyone ever argued that plea deals and non-disclosure agreements are unconstitutional because of the First Amendment?

    1. Do you agree with the court’s findings in NIFLA v Becerra? If so, how is that different than your contract scenario above?

      1. I think there is a giant difference between requiring people to meet certain conditions if they want to receive taxpayer money and compelling people to do something that violates their religious convictions.

        1. Why do you hold religious convictions above other convictions?

          Your analogy on contracts is actually a good way to prove my point. You wouldn’t say that a private contract is void if it is found to violate the religious convictions of one of the signers of the contract. They entered that contract knowing the terms. But you would, correctly in my opinion, say that Congress can’t require someone violate their religious beliefs in order to get government money. Why is non-religious speech different?

          If this were a private contract we would have no difference. That it isn’t is the reason it is different than the contract in your analogy just like in the case of NIFLA. The government, quite simply, can’t compel speech nor religion.

          1. “If this were a private contract we would have no difference.”

            I don’t understand why you see a difference between private contracts and contracts with the government.

            I see a difference between having a contract and not having a contract. If you compel people to do something without them having agreed to do so of their own free will, that’s coercion. If they agreed to the terms by signing a contract, that’s not coercion at all.

            1. “I think there is a giant difference between requiring people to meet certain conditions if they want to receive taxpayer money and compelling people to do something that violates their religious convictions [or their freedom of speech].”

              How’s that?

              It doesn’t make a difference.

            2. Government grants are not contracts.

              I’ll admit that NIFLA was about licensing, and not about grant money. So, I’ll ask the intent of my original question a different way…

              The government recognizes and protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Would it be reasonable to stipulate that recipients of grant money relating to family planning services make a pledge recognizing that they also recognize a woman’s rights to abortion, even if they were religious organizations? Would it be fair to eliminate those organizations from eligibility based solely on their refusal to disavow, through speech, their religious beliefs?

              1. Oh cool some guy on a blog.

              2. The difference between coercion and voluntary is the same regardless of whether there is some other distinction between contracts and grants.

                1. What about my question? Could Congress attach a requirement to acknowledge abortion rights to domestic grant money for family planning services?

                  1. The Court appears to say No in the US and Yes overseas.

                    It is perfectly legitimate for Congress to have different requirements for US and foreign entities. DOE projects have these all the time.

                  2. I can see all sorts of convoluted questions arising from the state of regulation today. For instance, it may not be possible to be a licensed facility in some jurisdictions without, say, a Medicaid contract–and if the contract were to require a provider to say or do something that violated someone’s First Amendment rights, that might amount to coercion.

                    However, on the stone cold isolated question before us, it seems constitutional to me to make a notification requirement a prerequisite to receive an optional government grant.

                    1. Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. I see this as a slippery slope, and maybe you don’t.

                      It seems there will always be legal entanglement whenever Congress is handing out grant money. Inasmuch as they are going to do that, it should be even handed and not discriminatory based on religion, speech, etc. But the root of the problem is Congress handing out money, on that we seem to agree.

                    2. We can agree to disagree

                      It doesn’t matter what you agree with.

                    3. “It seems there will always be legal entanglement whenever Congress is handing out grant money”

                      Genius level shit right there.

                    4. Well it’s better than “I don’t care what the court says I am right” that he spewed upthread

        2. I should add that NIFLA was decided based on free speech, not on religious establishment. The only difference I see in this case is whether or not Congress can compel speech of foreigners differently than that of citizens.

  12. The interesting logical question here is: if the government is giving out money to private organizations in order to further the government’s intended policy, is it a violation of free speech to require them to adhere to the government’s policy that is reason for the program in the first place? If it is, what can the justification be for the program existing in the first place?

    At least the conservative justices have the fig leaf that the money is going to foreign organizations outside the country. The Left wing justices appear to be nakedly disapproving of having a viewpoint against abortion.

    1. You’re giving ENB too much credit.

      You know what kind of places still need US aid to prevent the spread of HIV? The kind of places where HIV information and treatment is not accessible and wide spread.

      You know what kind of sex work permeates the places where HIV information is not accessible and widespread? Not the elitist, white “I read my blogs naked and subscribers pay me!” bitch kind that ENB envisions.

      Do you know why the Nigerian porn industry can’t compete with L.A.’s porn industry? Why that dumb bitch ENB never features an international delegation in her tours of XBIZ? Hint: It’s not because of the onerous policies of the US Gov’t.

  13. What’s with the highbeams? Thought this was a family site.

    1. Those can serve a familial purpose.

    2. shhh best thing on the site today lol

    3. She’s a whore, it’s called “advertising”

      1. She is simply saying “due to the Communist Chinese Virus, no kissing this time.”

      2. She’s a whore, it’s called “advertising”

        Actually, her title is Senior Editor at Reason Magazine

        1. You said the same thing he said.

    4. If you really think this is a family site, you haven’t been paying attention.

    5. Clicks. We needz da clicks. Without the clicks the site doesn’t exist at all.

  14. Foreign groups that receive American funding to fight HIV and AIDS must still pledge to oppose sex work

    This is retarded on all kinds of levels and I suspect that many of the recipients of the money would gladly tell ENB to shove it up her ass sideways of their own free will.

    Voluntary sex work through onlyfans.com is not the same as sex work in sub-saharan Africa you dumb, elitist bitch.

  15. The government isn’t compelling speech. The government is purchasing speech. Unless the author is arguing that the recipients are somehow entitled to government funding. Which would be superduperReasonlevel libertarianism.

    1. Which would be superduperReasonlevel libertarianism.

      Or bulk standard ENB.

      1. Tomayto, tomahto…

  16. Burqas, FGM, and honor killings are just free speech! Why would you be against the US giving aid to groups that endorce such free speech practices?

  17. The USAID must accept the fact that sex workers in Africa spread HIV/AIDS. That continent is nothing like anywhere else. I’ve often said that rampant STDs among women in Africa become HIV for men. I still expect to be proven right.

  18. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone.Click Here For More Detail.

  19. No Detail open site on work I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone…………… SeeMore here

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.