Monthly Archives: January 2022

John Halligan shows the Web page devoted to his son, Ryan, at his home in Underhill, Vermont, Feb. 7, 2007. Ryan Patrick Halligan, bullied by classmates for months online, killed himself in 2003. States from Oregon to Rhode Island are considering crackdowns to curb or outlaw the behavior in which kids taunt or insult peers on social Web sites like MySpace or via instant messages. However, cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague.(AP Photo/Toby Talbot, used with permission from the Associated Press)

Cyberbullying, sometimes called cyber-harassment, is bullying or harassing committed by electronic means. Cyberbullying has become a major issue in schools, as well as society at large, particularly after several high-profile incidents where kids who were bullied online committed suicide. The White House called a summit on the phenomenon in 2011.

More than 30 states have cyberbullying laws and other states have laws that require public school districts to amend their anti-bullying policies to include cyberbullying.

Cyberbullying presents First Amendment issues because the statutes often criminalize speech and some of the language in certain laws and regulations arguably is overly broad or vague. For example, the New York Court of Appeals invalidated Albany Countys cyberbullying law as overbroad in People v. Marquan M. The defendant, a high school student, posted sexually explicit pictures of classmates on the Internet.

Prosecutors charged him with violating Albany Countys law, which read:

"any act of communicating or causing a communication to be sent by mechanical or electronic means, including posting statements on the internet or through a computer or email network, disseminating embarrassing or sexually explicit photographs; disseminating private, personal, false or sexual information, or sending hate mail, with no legitimate private, personal, or public purpose, with the intent to harass, annoy, threaten, abuse, taunt, intimidate, torment, humiliate, or otherwise inflict significant emotional harm on another person."

The New York Court of Appeals reasoned that the law was too broad, because it embraces a wide array of applications that prohibit types of protected speech far beyond the cyberbullying of children.

The North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated its state cyberbullying law in State v. Bishop (2016). This case also involved a high school student who posted negative comments about a classmate under a sexually explicit photo. The state law prohibited the use of a computer to post or encourage others to post on the internet private, personal or sexual information pertaining to minors with the intent to intimidate or torment a minor.

The state high court explained that the law failed to require that the subject of an online post suffer injury from the online tormenting and, thus, the law sweeps far beyond the states legitimate interest in protecting the psychological health of minors. The state court also noted the failure of the state legislature to define the key terms intimidate or torment. Thus, the law could be applied to merely annoying speech protected by the First Amendment.

A related issue involves school officials attempting to punish students for their cyberbullying speech that takes place entirely off-campus. Many state laws targeting cyberbullying apply whether or not the speech takes place on-campus or off-campus.

However, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in a couple of decisions that school officials lack the authority to discipline students purely for off-campus, online speech. In one of those decisions, Layshock v. Hermitage School District (3rd Cir. 2011), the Third Circuit wrote that it would be a dangerous and unseemly precedent to allow the state, in the guise of school authorities, to reach into a childs home and control his/her actions there to the same extent that it can control that child when he/she participates in school sponsored activities.

However, most other circuits apply the familiar substantial disruption standard from Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969). Most courts have applied the Tinkers reasonable forecast of substantial disruption standard even to off-campus, online speech so long as there is a reasonable connection or nexus to school activities.

There is another part of the Tinker test that is often forgotten. In Tinker, the Court intimated that school officials could punish students if their speech invaded the rights of other students. Cyberbullying expert James C. Hanks explains in his book School Bullying: How Long Is the Arm of the Law that this part of the Tinker case could provide the legal justification for cyberbullying laws.

David L. Hudson, Jr. is a law professor at Belmont who publishes widely on First Amendment topics. He is the author of a 12-lecture audio course on the First Amendment entitled Freedom of Speech: Understanding the First Amendment (Now You Know Media, 2018). He also is the author of many First Amendment books, including The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech (Thomson Reuters, 2012) and Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, 2017). This article was originally published in 2009.

View post:
Cyberbullying | The First Amendment Encyclopedia

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

More:
Craig Carter: Another lecture on the First Amendment - Ontario Argus Observer

Opinion

You have 4 free articles left this month.

To the editor:

I read with interest letters to The Item by Dylan Cashman and Mary Gatlin published on Dec. 31 regarding their decisions to drop their subscriptions because they objected to another persons letter to The Item concerning vaccinations.

They did not agree with the letter (Richard G. Eramian, Dec. 30), and thought it should not have been published.

What these two individuals dont seem to understand is that a good and responsible newspaper, like The Item, has an unwritten duty to publish controversial letters in accordance with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Its called Freedom of Speech a freedom espoused by Cashman and Gatlin in their letters to The Item.

Their decisions to cancel their subscriptions reminds me of little children threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they dont get their way. Too bad! Grow up its in your interest!

Edward M. LandryLynn

Originally posted here:
Letter: Unpopular letters and the First Amendment - Itemlive - Daily Item

Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington announced Thursday that he will advance a bill that makes lying or spreading lies about free and fair elections by elected officials a gross misdemeanor, if those lies have the likelihood to stoke violence. The law would also apply to candidates for elected office.

Its yelling fire in a crowded theater, Inslee said to reporters on Thursday.

January 6 is a reminder not only of the insurrection that happened one year ago, but that there is an ongoing coup attempt by candidates and elected officials to overturn our democracy. They are willing to do this by provoking violence, and today I proposed we do something about that in Washington, Inslee said in a published statement on his governmental website on Thursday.

Soon, legislation will be introduced in the state House and Senate that would make it a gross misdemeanor for candidates and elected officials to knowingly lie about elections.The proposed law is narrowly tailored to capture only those false statements that are made for the purpose of undermining the election process or results and is further limited to lies that are likely to incite or cause lawlessness, Inslee said.

This legislation attempts to follow the relevant U.S. and state supreme court opinions on this issue. Were talking about candidates and elected officers knowingly throwing bombs at democracy itself when doing so is likely to result in violence, Inslee said. We can outlaw actions that provoke political violence and in doing so also protect our democracy. There is more that can be done by states and Congress to protect our democracy. I am open to any proposal that will protect the will of the voters and the institutions they use to decide who governs them.

Inslee cited the court case Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). In that case, it was found that speech that supports law-breaking or violence in general is protected by the First Amendment unless it directly encourages people to take an unlawful action immediately. More about that case at this link.

Inslee is a governor who rules with a heavy hand. In May of 2021, he ordered workplaces in Washington State to not only check employee vaccination documents, but to force employee badges to show their vaccination status, in violation of their health privacy. More about that illegal action at this link.

Washington state has been a hotspot for lawless behavior by Antifa, Black Lives Matter, anarchists, and other leftist groups during the months leading up to the 2020 election. Those activities gained national attention as leftists took over a section of downtown Seattle, vandalized and set fire to buildings, and clashed with police for weeks on end.

But rather than focus on actual lawlessness, Inslees new bill is aimed at conservatives who have legitimate concerns about the security of the election process.

Like Loading...

Continue reading here:
First Amendment challenge: Gov. Inslee to advance law that makes lying about elections a gross misdemeanor - Must Read Alaska

In the months leading up to Donald Trumps 2016 election victory, Fox News host Sean Hannity used his massive media platform to openly help his friend defeat Hillary Clintonan approach he justified by insisting that he is not a journalist and does not have to abide by journalistic ethics. Im not hiding the fact that I want Donald Trump to be the next president of the United States, Hannity said in August of 2016, adding: I never claimed to be a journalist. Earlier that year, the Fox News star acknowledged that, if he were to interview Clinton, he would go after her a hundred times harder than any Republican because he is an overtly partisan actor. Im not a journalist, Im a talk show host, he concluded.

However, on Tuesday, Hannitys attorney Jay Sekulow insisted that the House select committee investigating the Capitol riotwhich has released text messages Hannity sent to former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadowstreat his client like a journalist and offer him the same protections that members of the press are afforded by the First Amendment. We are evaluating the letter from the committee. We remain very concerned about the constitutional implications especially as it relates to the First Amendment, wrote Sekulow. We will respond as appropriate. Separately, to Axios, Sekulow mentioned concerns regarding freedom of the press.

The text messages in question, which were obtained as part of 9,000 pages of documents that Meadows handed over after being subpoenaed, show how Hannity acted as a key outside adviser for the former president during his final days in office. One week before the Capitol riot erupted, Hannity questioned Trumps strategy to overturn the election and warned that it could result in mass White House resignations. We cant lose the entire WH counsels [sic] office. I do NOT see January 6 happening the way [Trump] is being told, Hannity wrote in an exchange with Meadows. On the night of January 5, Hannity again texted Meadows, writing that he was very worried about the next 48 hours while expressing concern regarding Trumps attempt to pressure Mike Pence into intervening in the elections certification process. On the afternoon of January 6, as violence erupted around the Capitol building, Hannity pleaded with Meadows to try to put a stop to the attack. Can he make a statement? Ask people to leave the Capitol, he wrote. "Ask people to peacefully leave the Capitol.Finally, on January 10, Hannity reacted to the Houses attempt to impeach Trump by telling Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordan that Trump cant mention the election again. Ever. I did not have a good call with him today. And worse, Im not sure what is left to do or say, and I dont like not knowing if its truly understood. Ideas?

The bipartisan committees chair and vice-chair have requested Hannitys cooperation with the investigation. We have no doubt that you love our country and respect our Constitution, wrote committee chair Rep. Bennie Thompson and vice-chair Rep. Liz Cheney. Now is the time to step forward and serve the interests of your country.On the Tuesday night edition of Hannity, the host lashed out at the cowardly swamp creatures and the media mob, though he ultimately dodged the issue by not directly responding to the committees request. He also failed to address the role that his personal messages and advice to Trump have played in the January 6 investigation. Instead, he allowed his attorney to speak for him, with Sekulow releasing his First Amendment statement shortly after the conclusion of Hannitys show.

When asked for comment about the committees request and Hannitys lawyers reference to the First Amendment, a Fox News spokesperson referred Vanity Fair to Sekulow's statement. The question of whether Hannity is a journalist, and subject to any professional and ethical obligations that go along with it, has come up before. While Hannity has both denied being a journalist and described himself as suchIm an advocacy journalist, or an opinion journalist, he said in 2017The Washington Post struggled the following year to get a direct answer from his employer following the revelation that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen also represented the Fox News host. At the time, a network spokesperson would allow that Hannity is an opinion talk show host.

More Great Stories From Vanity Fair

The Story Behind the Only Known Photo of Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein The 140,000 COVID Orphans Left in the Shadows It Sure Sounds Like Trump Was Screening Don Jr.s Calls on January 6 Of Course the Ridiculous Bible Photo Op Was Ivankas Idea CNN and Chris Cuomo on the Brink of All-Out War The Prosecution Is Fumbling Its Case Against Ghislaine Maxwell Hunter Biden Paints His Truth From the Archive: Inside the Ultra-Exclusive Bohemian Club Not a subscriber? Join Vanity Fair to receive full access to VF.com and the complete online archive now.

See the rest here:
Sean Hannity Wants the January 6 Committee to Believe Hes a Journalist - Vanity Fair

Learn to live with COVID-19

Winter is the cold season! People get colds and the flu!

Now, rather than being proactive in myriad ways, colleges and universities around the country have decided to be reactive to delay their upcoming terms or go fully online.

The COVID-19 vaccine isn't stopping the virus, and we are going to have to live with it. COVID-19 and its variants have become like the flu. Just like the flu, likely you'll get an annual COVID shot for the mutations if you choose.

How long will our state and federal governments keep imposing vaccine and mask mandates that interfere with our personal lives and freedom?

Let people wear masks or not; let people take the shot or not.

Compared to the number of infections or deaths from cancer, heart disease and car accidents, the death rate from COVID-19 is very low.

Its time to stop the nonsense.

We can learn to live with this virus and its mutations.

Take the shackles off the citizens, especially our young adults, so they can have an enjoyable college experience while becoming educated as well as we can all worldwide have a Happy New Year!

Isn't it time?

Steve Mozena, Eugene

Nancy Lukasik maintains that Nick C.E. Squires should read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, (Letters, Jan. 4). She states the First Amendment promises freedom ofreligion, not freedom fromit.

Here is the textthat pertains to religion: Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...

Lukasik and Squires: Letters to the editor for Tuesday, Jan 4: Proof in the (vaccine) pudding

The first clause sounds a lot like freedom fromreligion (established by the federal government). The second clause sounds a lot like freedom ofreligion (including no religion). You need to read both parts.

The First Amendment explicitly prohibits the federal government from getting into the religion business in any way, pro or con. At least thats how I read shall make no law.

There are millions of Americans who believe in a host of religions and millions of others who dont. It would seem, unless we intentionally allow the federal government to color outside the lines of the First Amendment as written, Nancy and Nick should be able to sleep OK at night.

The religious, hypocritical, right wing of the Republican Party demands that unborn children have the right to life. Pro-choice people demand the womans right to choose. Neither notes what kind of life the child is entitled to live.

Our Constitution guarantees the pursuit of happiness.What if that happiness does not include being forced to birth unwanted children?

Twenty-five percent of our children in this the wealthiest nation on Earth suffer from hunger and/or homelessness.

The Republican Party pro-life/anti-abortionposition insists an unborn child must be born whether wanted by the birth parents or not.

Once that child is born, these religious, principled Republicans dont care or feel responsible for the type of life that child will have, or adult he or she will become. Will this child they insist on being born live in abject poverty, neglect, be abused, abandoned, receive a decent education, have food and shelter? Will this child be forced to be a criminal, destitute, have severe physical or emotional needs?

So, what right to a decent life does that child have?

Robert Rubinstein, Eugene

Whitney Randallsletterin The Register-Guard on Jan. 3 describes an upcoming ballot measure (Measure 6) that would establish the Oregon Peoples Rebate, a yearly cash payment of $750 to every Oregonian.

For progressives, this is a worthy cause for all the reasons Randall lists, especially for the large swath of Oregonians with low and middle incomes who have been economically left behind as the wealthy grew ever richer.

But there is a gigantic problem with Measure 6. It raises taxes on corporations in exactly the same way the overwhelmingly rejected Measure 97 would have in 2016:by taxing the gross receipts of corporations with more than $25 million in sales at such a high level that many types of businesses would see all of their net profit taxed away. Thats right. Alltheir profit.

Grocery stores, auto dealers and construction companies are only a few types of businesses that could no longer make a profit under this measure. The negative effects on the Oregon economy would be unthinkable.

Douglas Berg, Eugene

In this new year, we face some gigantic challenges.

Reminds me of the situation in the late 1940s when we faced the armies of the Axis powers. Everyone wanted to contribute to the war effort.Kids collected scrap metal and adults planted "victory gardens."

But what can ordinary people do about the challenges that come with the climate change? For one thing, we can install cisternsand water storage tanks to catch rain water that comes off roofs during rainy seasons. There could be some interesting competitions.

Dick Sweeney, Eugene

Ive been a registered nurse at PeaceHealth for 20 years. The last two have been extraordinarily challenging, particularly because Im also a mother with school-aged children.

Initially PeaceHealth supported staff with 80 hours of COVID-19 paid time off. When things improved last summer, it took whatever was unused away from us.

Today, I am forced to go into work and leave my teenager home, who is sick with COVID-19 (yes, shes vaccinated). I dont have the sick time to cover my pay and since I have no symptoms, I am expected to work. Hopefully, Im not exposing my coworkers and patients.

In reality, I probably am.

This health care worker is beyond exhausted. I feel I am being forced to abandon my sick and scared child and that I am being forced to put others at risk as I am likely a carrier of COVID-19.

In the meantime, PeaceHealth is paying traveling RNs quadruple what I make.

This experience has been demoralizing, to say the least. I believe health care workers and families deserve better than this.

Misty Villalobos, Eugene

Letters should be 200 words or fewer and sent with the writers name, address, and daytime phone number via e-mail to rgletters@registerguard.com. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and maybe published in any medium. We regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter.

See original here:
Letters to the editor for Sunday, Jan 9: Learn to live with COVID-19 - The Register-Guard

There are three flagpoles outside Boston City Hall. One flies the United States flag. Another flies the Massachusetts state flag. What can and cant fly from the third is an issue being taken up by the Supreme Court.

On Jan. 18, 2022, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments inShurtleff v. Boston. The case addresses whether the city violated the First Amendment by denying a request to temporarily raise the Christian flag on a flagpole outside City Hall, where Boston has temporarily displayed many secular organizations flags.

The case raises important questions aboutfree speechat a time when many members of the Supreme Court seem concerned aboutrestrictions on religion. The courts decision will likely clarify one or more free speech doctrines, impacting how courts nationwide interpret the First Amendments guarantees.

Shurtleff v. Boston also highlights disagreements about the nature and scope of freedom of speech, the kind of disputes I study inmy work on free speech and the First Amendment.

Case background

Boston permits groups to request that a flag temporarily fly alongside the American and Massachusetts flags at City Hall to mark special occasions, replacing the city flag that usually occupies the third post. Past examples include flag requests from the Chinese Progressive Association and the National Juneteenth Observance Foundation.

In 2017, Camp Constitution, a New Hampshire-based organization, requested to fly theChristian flag, which has a cross in the upper left corner and was designed by a Sunday school teacher and a missionary executive in the late 1800s. Today, some Protestant denominations display the flag inside their churches.

Camp Constitution asked to fly the flag as part of a planned event to celebrate the civic contributions of Bostons Christian community. The organizationsays its missionis to enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage, our American heritage of courage and ingenuity, including the genius of our United States Constitution, and the application of free enterprise.

Boston denied the request. The city cited concerns that raising the Christian flag at Boston City Hall would violatethe First Amendmentsestablishment clause, whichbars the governmentfrom promoting particular religions over others. After making a second request, which Boston also denied, Camp Constitution sued.

A federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appealssided with Bostonon the grounds that flying a flag on the third flagpole was government speech, not private speech and therefore the city was entitled to refuse to fly the Christian flag on its flagpole.

Camp Constitution appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted review.

The cases outcome will likely hinge on the Supreme Courts determination of whose views are represented by the flagpole outside City Hall: the private organization whose flag is temporarily flying, or the government. In other words, this case is about who is speaking when that flag goes up, and whose free speech rights are protected.

If the court determines that Camp Constitution is speaking, then a framework the court has developed, known as the public forum doctrine, will apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Camp Constitution.

If the court determines that the city of Boston is speaking, then the courtsgovernment speech doctrinewill apply. This would likely result in a ruling favoring Boston.

Public forum doctrine

Federal, state and local governments oversee a wide variety of public spaces, such as parks, universities and courthouses, just to name a few. These areas serve different functions, some of which require more regulation of speech than others.

The Supreme Court has organized government spaces into several categories, each of which permits different types of restrictions on free speech. This set of categories and permitted restrictions is referred to as thepublic forum doctrine.

Spaces like public parks and sidewalks are considered public forums, the category that permits the fewest restrictions on speech. In a public forum, a government can never restrict speechbased on viewpoint specific positions on a topic and is severely limited as to when it can restrict speechbased on content a given topic.

Normally, a flagpole outside a city hall would not be considered a public forum. However, the Supreme Court also recognizes a separate category, designated public forums, which are spaces the government converts into public forums. In a designated public forum, free speech regulation is limited in the same way it would be in a public forum.

In Shurtleff v. Boston, both parties agree that the area surrounding the flagpole is a public forum. But they disagree over whether the flagpole itself is a designated public forum.Camp Constitution arguesthat Boston has turned the flagpole into a designated public forum by allowing other groups to fly their flags there. Meanwhile,Boston arguesthat it has not, because the city retained control by permitting limited types of groups to raise their flags.

Camp Constitution notesthat Boston previously approved 284 requests to raise other flags, and that there is no record of a prior request being denied.

But Boston counters that none of those previous requests were for religious flags.The city arguesthat only two types of flags have been permitted: flags representing territories, nations and ethnicities, and flags associated with publicly recognized days of observance, such as Veterans Day andLGBTQ Pride Month. Boston argues that such limited categories of approval are not what one would expect in a designated public forum, and that this is evidence that Boston has not turned its flagpole into a designated public forum.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter.Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

Government speech doctrine

Over 30 years ago, inRust v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court recognized that the government itself is a speaker with First Amendment rights an idea known as thegovernment speech doctrine. Government speech is not subject to the public forum doctrine. Instead, the government has much greater discretion in deciding which messages it endorses.

Boston argues that raising a flag on the third flagpole at City Hall is government speech and therefore the city has the right to determine what views it wants to express on its flagpole. Camp Constitution disagrees, maintaining that the flagpole is a designated public forum and therefore few restraints on private groups free speech are allowed on the flagpole.

Both parties arguments rely on competing interpretations of the government speech doctrine put forward by the Supreme Court in two cases,Pleasant Grove v. SummumandWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

In 2009, the Supreme Court held in Pleasant Grove v. Summum that the permanent monuments in a park owned and operated by the town were government speech. The Supreme Courts unanimous decision allowed the town to denya request from a small religious group, Summum, to install a permanent monument expressing its beliefs, even though the park had previously accepted a monument of the Ten Commandments.

In 2015, the Supreme Court held inWalker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veteransthat license plates were government speech. This permitted Texas to deny a request for a specialty license plate featuring the Confederate flag, even though Texas offered a wide range of other specialty plates. Unlike Pleasant Grove v. Summum, this case was decided by a slim 5-4 majority.

Shurtleff v. Boston will likely require the court to further clarify the government speech doctrine. The central issue is this: When another flag temporarily replaces Bostons own, who is speaking?

Link:
Can a Christian flag fly at City Hall? The Supreme Court will have to decide - Carolinacoastonline

Gary Beatty| Guest Columnist

Its often incorrectly said that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not give you the freedom to yell fire in a crowded theater.

But what if there is a fire?

The correct statement is that the First Amendment does not give you the freedom to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater."A colloquial illustration that free speech, like all individual rights, isnot unlimited.

What are the limits on free speech?

On most college campuses today, too many students believe the limit is whatever words make them uncomfortable the definition of which seemingly changes daily.Even worse, theadults (professors) who are supposed to be educating the students, and administrators running the schools, enable that type of flawed thinkingto fester.In fact, some would consider it a sign of something more serious.

The need to be protected from ideas that offend, or make you uncomfortable, is a symptom of mental illness, as Professors Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt demonstrate in their groundbreaking bestseller, "The Coddling of the American Mind."The mental patients have taken over the asylum.

Aside from mental illness, a belief that people must be protected from mere words strikes at the very foundation of a free society.That it dominates attitudes in academia is particularly disturbing because The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas."Thats how the Supreme Court has defined freedom of speech in college classrooms. The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

Last March the Supreme Court decided a case indirectly related to free speech on campus.Two evangelical Christian students were prevented from proselytizing in the public area on the campus of Georgia Gwinnett College because (according to the college speech code)talking about religion in public disturbs the peace and/or comfortof person(s)."and amounted to fighting words."

When the students sued for violation of their First Amendment rights, the school quickly rescinded the speech code in an attempt to prevent the lawsuit from going forward.The Supreme Court ruled the suit could go forward regardless.Though the case as it came to the Court doesnt address the First Amendment claim, and is limited to a procedural requirement for maintaining lawsuits, freedom of speech is the basis of the lawsuit.

Whats significant is how quickly the college abandoned their speech code when faced with a lawsuit alleging it violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said the suit can go forward, and the law may permit the fact the college abandoned its speech code in the face of the suit as evidence they attempted to obstruct vindication of the students' rights.

Unfortunately, the notion that offensive speechshould not be allowed is spreading like a noxious fungus from the moldy halls of academia.For example, social media has its version of arbitrary content-based speech codes, prompting those who respect the Constitution to fight back against such discrimination.

In response to former President(and Florida resident)Donald Trump being blocked from Twitter, the Florida legislature passed, and the governor signed into law, a ban on social media arbitrarily deplatforming political candidates. Platforms can be fined if they do so.

The new law requires the social media platforms to publish standards of what content is, or is not, permittedand to show they enforce those standards uniformly rather than selectively as they did with Trump.Social media companies are challenging the law on the ground that they claim it infringes their First Amendment rights.

Think about that hypocrisy. The owners of social media platforms are whining that suing them for selectively limiting citizens rights of free speech somehow limits their own First Amendment rights!Hopefully Supreme Court precedent will thwart the owners comedic ascent into Aristophanes nephelococcygia (absurdity).

More: Public defenders provide same quality defense as private attorneys | Opinion

More: Verdict was just as prosecutors 'pandered to the mob' in Rittenhouse trial | Opinion

In 1943, the United States Supreme Court said that forcing a person to believe something, or to say words they dont agree with, violates our core values, If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

You cant be deprived of the right to disagree with, or voice disapproval of, the social justice cause du jour. If those causes are justifiable they should welcome competition in the market of ideas. That they dont proves their intellectual bankruptcy.

Gary Beatty lives in Sharpes andis retired from 30 years as an assistant state attorney in Brevard County. He has a doctorate in law andiscertified in criminal trial law by the Florida Bar.

Support local journalism and become a subscriber. VIsitfloridatoday.com/subscribe

Read the original here:
Limiting 'offensive' free speech goes against the Constitution | Opinion - Florida Today

WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. Questions about an ordinance proposed at the end of 2021 banning the use of conversion therapy trickle into the new year, as the West Lafayette City Council prepares to bring up the controversial agenda item in February..

Ordinance 31-21, whichwould ban treatment aimed at changingan individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, was introduced at December's city council meeting. Wording in the ordinance included, "It shall be a violation of this ordinance for an unlicensed person to engage in conversion therapy with a minor person."

Dr. Steve Viars, a pastor at Faith Lafayette, contacted the Journal & Courier with a commentary he wrote about the ordinance. Within Viars' writing, he explained concerns he and other members of Faith Biblical Counseling have with the anti-conversion ordinance.

"Imagine a scenario where an area teenager voluntarily visits a self-identified faith-based counselor, but because the counselor used the Bible as their source of truth, the local police department imposed a fine of $1000 per day," Viars wrote."Sound like a poorly-written plotline from a dystopian fiction flick? Actually, that could be our new reality, courtesy of the West Lafayette City Council and their proposed ordinance 31-21."

Viars also mentioned a questionnaire citizenssent to the city council members to "determine what they were seeking to achieve." According to Viars, two of the nine city council members have responded. The full questionnaire is available athttps://www.freedomlafayette.org/.

Viars' commentary is published on the Journal & Courier website.

The public as well as members of the council have expressed confusionwiththe ordinance's wordingto what types of licensed professionals the ordinance refers; what the punishment for practicing conversion therapy would be; and what defines conversion therapy.

"There are governmental entities who have banned conversion therapy to some degree, but have had difficulty with enforcement as there is a great deal of controversy as to what constitutes conversion therapy," John Dennis, West Lafayette mayor, told the Journal & Courier."Other agencies seem to be focused on acts or therapies that can be 'psychologically damaging or personally threatening.'

"The bigger question is how would the city patrol or enforce issues relating to the concept of free speech? From a purely operational perspective this ban would be very challenging to enforce ... would we hand out tickets?"

During the December West Lafayette City Council meeting, members voted to table Ordinance 31-21 to the February 2022 meeting in order to more specifically reorganize the document's phrasing.

"We are continuing to work on it with our fellow city councilors (and) city attorney to clarify the language," David Sanders, a council member and co-sponsor for the ordinance, said. "I think the most important issue that needs to be clarified is the nature of enforcement. So we're continuing to work on that.

"We've already agreed on substantive changes. We had an amendment which I proposed and which was adopted that discusses the protections of First Amendment rights and rights under Title One of the Indiana Constitution."

The Indiana Constitution includes protections stating, "No law shall, in any case whatever, control the free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience."

Concerns of protecting free speech and freedom of religion have beenraised, and Sanders assures that these protections are being considered as the ordinance's wording is being reworked.

"We want to reassure people that there was no intention to infringe upon those types of rights," Sanders said.

The second reading of rdinance 31-21 is scheduled for Feb. 7 at 6:30 p.m.

Margaret Christopherson is a reporter for the Journal & Courier. Email herat mtroup@jconline.com and follow heron Twitter@MargaretJC2

Read the original here:
West Lafayette's proposed ordinance on banning conversion therapy raises questions - Journal & Courier

Are you curious about a person, place or thing in your city? Wondering about issues that seem unique to Coachella Valley and want to learn more? Speak up. Desert Sun journalists are here to answer your burning questions. Learn how to submit at the bottom of this story.

Q:Do psychicsneed a license to tell the future in the Coachella Valley?

Tucked away in strip malls, apartment complexes and unassuming homes across the Coachella Valley, businesses promising supernatural servicescall to curious customers.

Psychic. Fortuneteller.Centro Mayor Espiritual.

While relatively modest in size, the desert psychic sector hosts a wide range of characters, from classic tarot readersand mediumsto a Hispanic spiritualist organization espousing mustard-based spells to bring wealth to your family.

But are thesebusinesses legal? What do desert cities do, if anything, to regulate psychics, mediums and others selling knowledge of the unknowable?

Decades ago, concerns about these professions' propensity to exploit vulnerable people resulted inmandatory psychic permitting processes across Californiaandin a majority of Coachella Valley cities.

But a Desert Sun examination of the local occult industryfoundmost Coachella Valley psychicsdo not have the required permits. Local cities alsoappear unconcerned with the violations, with few or no enforcement actions on record for most.

Five Coachella Valley cities Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Indio and Coachellarequire specific permits for psychics and other occult businesses. These citiesreport a total of four licensed psychics between them. Yet an onlinesearch for such businessesyields websites and Yelp pages for three times that numberin the samecities.

The city ordinances covering these activities most dating from the mid-1980s mandate permitting processes of varying scope.These rangefrom a relatively simple background check in Palm Desert,to a more lengthy process in Palm Springs,Indioand Cathedral City involving the submission of a five-year employment history and fingerprints on a form provided by local police. The ordinances in these latter cities also stipulate that psychics must pay surety bonds required "to insure good faith and fair dealing on the part of the applicant" of $15,000 to the cities,although fees associated with the lawsare subject to change and appear to have been reduced since their writing.

Many of theselocal psychicordinances arereplacements of early-1960s policies that banned such activities outright. After a 1985 CaliforniaSupreme Court ruling found that such bans were unconstitutional, Coachella Valley cities swapped the bans forpermitting ordinances.

Since then, the ordinances appear to have been rarely enforced. Officials in several Coachella Valleycities were unable to locate any records of enforcement action for their psychic laws. The City of Palm Desert reported one enforcement action in the last 30 years, resulting in the relocation of a local psychic business to an area that was properly zoned for the activity.

Palm Desert saidits ordinance with one of the less rigorous permitting processeswas part of basic due diligence to protect consumers in a relatively fraud-prone industry.

"The intention of this code is to prevent individuals who have been charged with deceptive practices from having easy access to those who may be vulnerable to fraud or other illicit practices," wrote Palm Desert spokespersonRyland Penta in an email. "Regulating certain businesses that have a higher propensity for these types of crimes is a proper exercise to protect the health, safetyand welfare of the public."

The city'sconcerns are not unfounded.

Some psychics along with religious and spirituality scholars say times of great uncertainty, such as the current pandemic, can drive up demand for psychic services.Increased demand can createmore opportunities for fraud, which was the case in multiple high-profile Southern California psychic scam cases this fall.

In one recent instance, a Riverside fortunetellermade national headlines in late Octoberafter being arrested on charges of felony grand theft. According topolice, the man utilized a voodoo doll, tarot cards, "religious and satanic-type objects," and a live snake as part of a scam that defrauded a woman out of more than $50,000 amid promises to rid her and her family of a curse. Thatfortuneteller had previously been arrestedand convicted of a similar fraud in Chicago inlate 2019.

That same month, a Los Angeles-area psychic made international headlines when she was targeted ina $25,000 fraud lawsuit. The plaintiff in that case said the psychic falsely claimed she could remove a curse put on his marriage by a witch hired by his ex-girlfriend. Despite making an initial $1,000 deposit for the curse-removal service, the plaintiff said his marriage situation did not improve.

Psychic fraud cases such as these have been on the rise since the onset of the pandemic, according to senior advocacy group AARP, as predatory actors look to exploit peoples' heightened sense of uncertainty andvulnerability.

Timothy Courtney, one of two licensed psychics in Palm Springs, argues there's fraudsters in all business sectors but that psychics get singled out assuspectbecause they aren't selling a physical product or measurableservice.

"There are people in any business that (cheat people)," Courtney said.

"We seem to think this one is different because it is intangible," he added."We don't have a product to hold onto or a house that was finished or unfinished."

Courtney saidethically mindedpsychics should workto conduct business in a transparent and professional way, clearly posting and adhering to set prices for each service offered so that no one feels they are being pumped for cash. The Palm Springs psychicsaid he also takes the extra step of never asking for follow-up appointments with his clients.

"In all the years I've done this and the thousands of people I've worked with, I've never told anyone 'You need to come back,'" Courtney said. "You come when you need it."

"I think it's very disrespectful to just 'check-in' on people," he added.

Some local psychics weremore blunt about issues of fraud in their industry.

"There's a lot of scammers out there," said "Psychic Billy,"a psychic based in Palm Desert who does not have a permit and said he was unaware they were mandatory. Billy, who didn't respond to multiple inquiries about his full name,saidhe never "pressure(s) people into doing anything whatsoever" and clearly posts prices for all services offered.

The psychic said, however, that he was aware of other local psychics who are "scam artists," including onewho haddefrauded people of "thousands of dollars."

Another Palm Desert psychic, "Madame Zelda," whose expired Palm Desert psychic license lists the name Gina Merino,said she had been the victim of harassment and vandalism on her Highway 111 storefront before it closed down lastyear. Shesuspectedanother psychic in the city was behind the incidents.

Despite almost universally claiming to run transparent operations,evensome of the Coachella Valley's fully licensed psychics were unwilling to disclose their full name to The Desert Sun.

Sometimes you tell people things they dont want to hear and they get angry, said apsychic namedTammyat Mystic Desert psychic and gift shopon North Palm Canyon Drive.I have one guy who used to come in and spit on my window every day because I told him something he didnt want to hear.

I don't tell any of my clients my last name," she added. "Its the way I know how to keep my family safe."

Tammy is fully licensed and has operated out of a storefront onNorth Palm Canyon Drive for more than a decade. She said she got licensed out of a desire to be"legal" and "legit."

"I didnt want to be one of those readers because there area lot of them that stay (in an area) as long as they can, get what they can get and then they leave," she said.

Courtney, Palm Springs' other licensed psychic, said he has gone to great lengths to adhere to the city's requirements and be transparent about his fees and services.

Raised in a highly religious family in Kentucky, Courtney said he spent years performing psychic services under the table as a side job while living in Los Angeles. When he moved to Palm Springs in 2016and decided to pursuework as a psychic and medium full time, Courtney said he was determined to follow the rules.

The psychic paid the required surety bond, submitted fingerprintsand supplied the city with photos and other documentation, a process he says he undertook "out of respect for the work I do" and for "the city and the people who live here."

"At the time … when I gave my bonding papers to the city, they said, 'You know, you're the only person in this that we have that's done all this work," he recalled. "Everyone else signs up as an entertainer."

"I heard about the entertainment (route) and said 'You know what? I'm not doing that. I'm legit,'" Courtney added. "I want to keep a very, very respectable (business) and I want to follow what the city has to say about it."

That supposedrouteis a loophole of sorts in Palm Springs, Indio and Cathedral City'sordinances, which contain exemptions for people practicing occultservices purely for entertainment or as part of a religious practice. Someunpermitted local psychics claim these entertainment exemptions, although the personal consultations offered by thebusinesses often conflict with ordinance requirements that all exemptactivity be conducted in a public place and that questions are only answered in a waythat "all persons present at such public place" can hear the answers.

The religious exemption allows a much greater freedom of activity, although it appears rarelyif everused. One unlicensed Palm Springs psychic's website notes that she isanordained minister with the Universal Life Church, an organization known toordainalmost anyone online for a small fee. Individuals claiming this exemption must still file with the city, however, and no religious exemptions to the ordinances have been filed, according to Palm Springscity officials.

There's no single answer to this question. The most obvious reason is simply that enforcement of the psychic ordinancesis a lower priority for cities working with limited resources. And while this is almost certainly a factor, legal experts suggest thatother tricky issuesmay be at work.

If Coachella Valley citiesever did decide to begin strict enforcement of the psychic ordinances, they could run intoFirst Amendment issues, according to Pepperdine Universitylaw professorShelly Saxer.

Saxersaid that, while commercial free speech such as for a paid psychic readingis generally less protected than individual free speech, religious speech and practice tends to be highly protected and difficult to regulate.

"It makes me think of a case when I was clerking for a federal judge years ago," Saxer said. "It was a husband and wife team who had been prosecuted under state law for prostitution and pandering and they claimed this was their religion and came into federal court."

Thewoman in that case,Mary Ellen Tracy, claimed she performed sex acts with hundreds of men in the Los Angeles areaas part of her duties as thehigh priestess of the "Church of the Most High Goddess." Men were required to make "sacrifices" usually monetary paymentsto participate in the sexual rituals, which prosecutors argued amounted to thinly disguised prostitution.

Even in that rather extreme case, Saxer said the issue was highly contentious and difficult to resolve. Although the judge eventually decided against Tracy and ruled that the religion was a sham, Saxer said the situation highlights how difficult it could become for a city to prosecute an occultbusiness claiming to operate under the aegis of religious freedom.

Saxer discussed the example of one local business as an illustration of how quickly the line between religious activity and psychic business can become blurred.

Indio's El Hermano Que Cura ("The Brother that Heals" in English) sells tarot and astrological consultations to, among other things, help clients determine compatibility with a romantic partner and improve their sex lives. The business proffers a range of loosely related services, such as spells to attract money using rituals based around mustard seeds.

El Hermano, according to representative Jesus Vera, has been operatingin the Coachella Valley for the past seven years. The business'Indio Boulevard storefront is registered as a retail business, according to Indioofficials, who said the city was unable to locate any records for a permitted psychic business within its limits.

Vera said in an email that El Hermano provided "spiritual services" which was a "completely broad" concept "because with our experience, freedom of expression, freedom of worship and variety of beliefs we can establish a different procedure in each case to achieve inner and outer healing of any kind of imbalance that exists in our daily routines."

When asked about the psychic permit, Vera said El Hermano was a licensed business and provided its retail business license number.

The suggestion that the psychic ordinance does not apply to El Hermano appears dubious at least according to the letter of the law.Like most of the local psychic regulations, Indio's ordinance is highly specific andclearly written with thepsychic industry's diversity of services in mind. It defines the services requiring a permit as follows:

"(F)orecasting of future events or furnishing of any information not otherwise obtainable by the ordinary process of knowledge, by means of ... clairvoyance, clairaudience, cartomancy, phrenology, spirits, tea leaves or other such reading, mediumship, seership, prophecy, augury, astrology, palmistry, necromancy, mind-reading, telepathy, or other craft, art, science, cards, talisman, charm, potion, magnetism, magnetized article or substance, crystal gazing, oriental mysteries or magic of any kind or nature or other similar means or act."

Saxer said the specificity of Indio's ordinance leaves little wiggleroom and clearly fits the definition ofEl Hermano's business activities.

Despite this, shesaid it could be difficult for the city to enforce the psychic ordinance against El Hermano particularly if the business leaned into areligious freedom defense. Like Palm Springs and Cathedral City's ordinances, Indio's psychic regulations contain an exception for religious practices. Businesses wishing to claim the exemption must file with the city and must be a "bona fide church or religious association maintaining a church and holding regular services and having a creed or set of religious principles that is recognized by all churches of like faith," according to the ordinance.

"When yousay things like it's a bona fide church or religious organization, that gets really tough to declare that something is not a religion," Saxer said. "If you're talking about spiritual counseling, you're on that line of religious use that then gets more protection under the First Amendment."

The majority opinion in the 1985 state Supreme Court casethat led to the psychic permittingordinances hints at the mushy distinction between a legitimate and illegitimatepsychic business. According to the opinion, if the person does not actually believe in their own ability to deliver what they promise with their occult powers, then they are engaged in fraud. The ruling reasoned, however, that ifsomeone truly believed in the truth of their predictions, then they were acting legitimately.

"When such persons impart their beliefs to others, they are not acting fraudulently; they are communicating opinions which, however dubious, are unquestionably protected by the Constitution," wroteJustice Stanley Mosk in the 1985 opinion.

Saxer noted that most of these thorny issues would likely onlycome into play if a city decided to deny a psychic a permit or deny someonea religious exemption to the permitting process.

"But I can understand cities being nervous about trying to enforce these" ordinances, she said, "because there are problems with them."

The Pepperdine law professor suggested that these issues, in part, may contribute to Coachella Valley cities' lack of enforcement of the psychic ordinances.

Such rarely enforced laws are common across America. Termed "dead crimes" by some legal scholars, the offenses can range fromswearing or spitting on the street toproviding massage services to clients of the opposite sex orhaving sex while unmarried still technically a crime in somestates.

Some experts, such as lawyer and legal scholar Joel Johnson, argue that theexistence of dead lawscan undermine the rule of law by allowing for arbitrary enforcement. In the case of the psychic ordinances, this could meanan official acting in bad faith could target a specific psychic business for enforcementfor reasons unrelated to protectingpublic welfare.

Saxer, however, argued that the psychic ordinances could have some legitimateutility even if they are largely ignored now. In the event thata large psychic sector began to emerge in the Coachella Valley, shereasoned, a city could use broad enforcement of the psychic ordinances to clean up the local industry and reduce theriskof fraud.

"If you have this (law)on the books, then at that point you might start enforcing it against everyone," Saxer said,"because (then) you're addressing an issue where there are multiple people who are complying but there are a lot of people who are not getting the permits."

Diane Winston, a religion and spirituality scholar at USC, said the debate about what, if anything, constitutes a "legitimate" psychic business goes back to the foundation of the practice in America.

She pointed to the rise of the spiritualist movement in the mid-19th century as the genesis of many prevalent psychic and occult-related beliefs.

"People who say they communicate with the dead have been around forever," Winston said."But it became an important phenomenon in America in the 1840s when two sisters in New Yorkclaimed that they had heard tapping, which they interpreted to be ghosts."

The two sisterswere laterjoined by their third sibling to form the now-famousFox sisters trio, whoplayed a key role in launching the spiritualist movement, which drewmillions of American followers at its height.

Margaretta Foxsaidin the late 1880s, however, that the entire ghost-tapping incident had begun as a jokeand provided details and demonstrations of how the sistershad tricked audiences in subsequent performances.

Despite this blow, Winston said that belief in spiritualism continued on, feeding into many of the psychic practices still present today.

In the latter half of the 19th century, sheexplained, rapidsocietal change andcalamities such as the Civil War drove people to seek comfort and a sense of control in the information provided by spiritualists. Winston said the same desire for control and predictability amid crises such as the COVID-19 pandemicmight underlie the ongoing demand for psychic services today.

"Any time theres uncertainty in the world, people want to know theyre going to be OK," said Tammy of Mystic Desert.

The psychic reported seeing bumps in business during both the Great Recession a decade agoand during the early days of the COVID pandemic.

"When thepandemic hit, people needed some reassurance," Tammy said. "This is somebody telling themthat everything is going to be OKor notso they could prepare."

She said this influx of early-pandemic clients asked for phone readings around typical questions like financial and job security, as well as some unique lockdown-era inquiries.

"(Some were asking) how they're going to cope with their husband since they're going to be (cooped up) with them for so long," she said.

Winston said that, at their best, the services provided by psychics can have parallels to those provided by therapists although she noted she was hesitant to draw too strong of a line between the two.

"A therapist uses the past to help you gain insights into where you are now or else helps you think about your present situation in ways that may help you feel freer about the burdens you carry," Winston said.

"I think that there are psychics and there were spiritualists that had that same motivation," she said."They wanted to be able to help people put down their burdens and see life more clearly and be able to enjoy their life."

Many of the processesdescribedby aforementioned Palm Springs psychic Courtney seem to align with this therapeutic function.

"I love the word 'encourage,'" Courtney said. "I don't tell (clients) what do to. I would always say, 'I would like to encourage you to see the doctor about what I seegoing on in your head,' or 'I would like to encourage you to follow through with what's come in today' because solutions always come."

Many clients come to psychics andmediums seeking peace of mind or reassurance, which sometimescomes in the form of a "sign" from someone they love.In one instance, Courtney described seeing a sunrise during a reading with the mother of a stillborn baby andtelling her that baby wanted her to know he sawit whenhe died.

"She cried and cried," Courtney said."She said, 'What you don't know is that ever since we found out we were pregnant with (the baby), we have taken him outside every morning to watch the sunrise.'"

"That was super powerful for themom," he added.

Desert Sun East Valley reporter Eliana Perez contributed to this report. James B. Cutchin covers business in the Coachella Valley. Reach him at james.cutchin@desertsun.com.

If you appreciate journalism that is directly shaped by what the community wants to know, please consider a subscription and support the work done by local journalists in the Coachella Valley.

View post:
Ask The Desert Sun: Do psychics need a license to tell the future in the desert? - Desert Sun