The 3 - September 17, 2023

This week's edition of The 3 includes news out of the United Kingdom, where a major officials has decided to announce that praying in front of an abortion clinic is not illegal.  Also, a former clerk in Kentucky who would not issue same-sex marriage licenses has received two verdicts - one in her favor, another not.  Plus, a federal appeals court has decided that government officials acted illegally when it conspired with social media companies to manipulate content.

British officials says prayer at abortion clinics is not illegal

Over the last year, three people have been arrested in the United Kingdom for engaging in silent prayer outside of abortion clinics, according to an article at the Life Institute website. 

Now, the British Home Secretary has said that this type of expression is not against the law.  The website article says...

Britain’s Home Secretary Suella Braverman has announced that silent prayer near abortion providers is not a crime.

The article goes on to say: "Ms Braverman has written to every police force in the UK to say that 'silent prayer, within itself, is not unlawful.'"  It adds:

The Home Secretary also reminded police that “holding lawful opinions, even if those opinions may offend others, is not a criminal offence”.

Pro-life advocate Isabel Vaughn-Spruce, who had been arrested for such prayer, hailed the Home Secretary's action.  The article also noted:

The Home Secretary’s intervention was welcomed by Megan Ní Scealláin of the Life Institute who said that it was a “real victory for free speech, and pro-life prayer, and for those who showed courage and resilience in standing up for both mothers and babies”.

“Isabel, and Fr Seán Gough and others who have been arrested for their silent witness are a real inspiration to the hundreds of thousands of people who are horrified by the spiralling abortion rates and who want to offer a better answer for mothers and babies,” she said.

Gough "had charges dismissed after he was arrested for silent prayer and for having a pro-life bumper sticker on his car within the zone," according to Life Institute.

Former KY clerk wins one court case, loses another

After the Obergefell decision allowed same-sex marriage in the U.S., a Kentucky clerk named Kim Davis made a decision to not issue licenses to same-sex couples in her county.  Davis was sued for damages by two same-sex couples.  Verdicts were handed down last week.

Liberty Counsel represented Davis, and its website stated:

The Yates v. Davis and Ermold v. Davis cases each involve a same-sex couple who sued Davis in 2015 following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision regarding “same-sex marriage.” During the trial, two juries heard the same evidence and the same arguments in both cases. In Yates v. Davis, the jury awarded zero damages because that is what the evidence required. The plaintiffs in that case originally asked for $300,000 in damages.

The Ermold verdict was a different story, however.  Liberty Counsel reports:

...without any evidentiary support, the Ermold jury reached a verdict of $50,000 for each plaintiff. The evidence presented at trial simply does not support that verdict. The plaintiffs asked for $50,000 each in damages, alleging that David Ermold was terminated from the University of Pikeville because of the Kim Davis case. During the trial, the Human Resource Director testified that was not true and that Ermold’s position was downsized along with other positions. Losing their basis to allege damages, the Ermold plaintiffs then changed gears during the trial to allege they should receive damages for hurt feelings.

So, the Ermond decision will be appealed, according to the Christian legal organization.  Liberty Counsel contends that Kim Davis was not only "entitled" to a religious accommodation, but received one from then-Governor Matt Bevin, as well as from the Kentucky Legislature.  Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel is quoted as saying:

“We look forward to appealing this decision for Kim Davis. We will argue religious accommodation under the First Amendment, and other state and federal laws. We will also argue that Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Yesterday’s jury verdict has paved the way for this case to go the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Appeals court upholds decision on unlawful coordination between federal agencies and social media companies

It was on Independence Day this year when a federal judge ruled that federal government agencies improperly coordinated with social media companies to communicate its narrative on a variety of issues, in violation of the First Amendment. 

The Daily Citizen from Focus on the Family reports that:

On September 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that “numerous federal officials coerced social-media platforms into censoring certain social-media content, in violation of the First Amendment.”

The court said the White House, the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) flouted the First Amendment by coercing or encouraging social-media platforms to censor content. The involvement of government officials in the content decisions of social media companies “render[ed] those decisions state actions,” thereby triggering the U.S. Constitution’s Free Speech Clause.

The article states:

The Daily Citizen has previously reported on numerous instances in which federal government officials coordinated with social media companies to block content they didn’t like.

In effect, such censorship grants government nearly unlimited powers over speech on social media that it doesn’t like – something the court has now found to be unconstitutional.

The states of Missouri and Louisiana are plaintiffs in the lawsuit, along with several individuals. The article states:

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said after the ruling,

Our team will continue to construct this wall of separation between tech and state. Yesterday’s ruling was one more brick laid in that foundation. Your First Amendment rights are not up for debate.