free speech

Supreme Court To Hear Evangelist’s Religious Freedom Case

On December 3, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an important religious freedom case brought by Gabriel Olivier, a Christian evangelist who was arrested for telling others about Jesus at a public park in Brandon, Mississippi.

Six years ago, the city built a new amphitheater in a 250 acre park, The Quarry. As First Liberty, a Christian legal aid group, explained in a summary of the case:

“Gabriel (Gabe) Olivier is a Christian who is passionate about his faith and obliged to tell others about the hope and love he has found in Jesus Christ. He often stands in public places near well-attended events where he can peaceably share the gospel with as many people as possible.”

But the City of Brandon passed an ordinance limiting “protests” or “demonstrations” to a 10-by-10-foot space, 100 yards away from the venue. The city included “oral dialogue, signs, literature, expressive clothing, or one-on-one conversations” – including religious speech – in its definition of “protests.”

Here’s the tiny “free speech zone,” outlined in white, far from the amphitheater.

First Liberty said, “Gabe and his small group walked to the designated ‘protest zone’ where the city would have them stand and evangelize.”

But the group found that “no one could hear or see them while confined to the box, much less converse with or accept literature from them, rendering their outreach efforts useless,” so they moved closer to the amphitheater.

First Liberty explained what happened next:

“But since this practical evangelism ran counter to the ordinance, a police officer soon arrested Gabe for violating the law and took him away in a squad car. He pled “no contest” to the charge – which was not an admission of guilt – and paid the $304 fine.”

Olivier challenged the city’s statute, but “the district court dismissed his constitutional claim without even considering its merits.”

He appealed the case, but he was denied a hearing.

“A Fifth Circuit panel, on appeal, affirmed the lower court, and the entire Fifth Circuit declined to hear the case by a 9 to 8 vote.”

“These courts relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case, Heck v. Humphrey, that held a prisoner could not bring a constitutional claim challenging verdict or sentencing and must instead turn to a form of relief known as habeas corpus – a recourse only available for prisoners – so as not to overturn the guilty verdict of the state criminal court.”

As First Liberty pointed out, Olivier was not a prisoner seeking to overturn a criminal verdict, and he hadn’t been found guilty of a crime.

Still, the courts refused to even consider the City of Brandon’s unconstitutional denial of Olivier’s First Amendment rights, and “Gabe Olivier was effectively denied his day in Court.”

First Liberty and the law firm Gibson Dunn appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which accepted the case in July.

Allyson Ho, a partner at Gibson Dunn and volunteer attorney with First Liberty, will represent Olivier before the court. First Liberty described her as “a seasoned and elite litigator, adding, “She has presented over 100 oral arguments in federal and state courts nationwide, including six high-stakes business cases before the Supreme Court.”

The case is important, as First Liberty explained, because Olivier was denied his First Amendment rights – and then stripped of the ability to defend those freedoms in court.

“Constitutional rights mean little if we cannot assert them in court. We need the Supreme Court to bring clarity to a Heck precedent that is being wrongly applied to keep people from enjoining unconstitutional laws that persist in violating their rights. Everyone deserves their day in court, especially when First Amendment rights are at stake,” the Christian legal aid group explained.

We wish Gabriel Olivier well as he works to protect his religious liberty and free speech.

This is a case where we are definitely not saying, “Let’s go Brandon!”

The case is: Gabriel Olivier v. City of Brandon.

Related Articles and Resources

Court Awards $885,000 in Attorney Fees After Counseling Censorship Victory

Mark Matlock: Making Meaningful Connections with the Spiritually Curious

Oregon School District Pays $650,000 for Firing Teachers Opposed to ‘Trans’ Policy

Photographer Emilee Carpenter Wins Crucial Free Speech Victory Against New York

Pro-Life Activist Arrested for Peaceful Prayer Appeals to Supreme Court

Sidewalk Evangelist Wins Right to Share Good News

Three Ways to Introduce Your Friends to Jesus

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Case of Evangelist Banned From Sharing His Faith

Winsome Apologetics Through Questions and Logic

Believers Must Differentiate Free Speech, ‘Hate Speech,’ Censorship and ‘Cancel Culture’ — Here’s How

Late night television host Jimmy Kimmel returned to airwaves on Tuesday, September 23, after a brief suspension.

Disney stopped production of Jimmy Kimmel Live! last week after Kimmel claimed Charlie Kirk’s assassin was one of the “MAGA gang,” which is untrue. Two ABC affiliates, Nexstar and Sinclair, subsequently refused to air Kimmel’s show.  

Neither affiliate broadcast Kimmel’s return, citing ongoing discussions with ABC and Disney.

Kimmel’s brief retirement from late night TV is part of a larger national discussion about free speech, hate speech, cancel culture and censorship in the wake of Kirk’s assassination.

Some, including Kimmel, believe the federal government illegally censored him for saying speech it doesn’t like. They argue Nexstar dropped Kimmel to secure the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approval on an upcoming merger.

FCC Chair Brendon Carr denies getting involved. He and others blame the host’s brief ouster on his show’s poor ratings.

Believers greatly benefit from free speech protections, which allow us to spread the Gospel, practice Christianity and raise families according to the Bible’s instruction. But supporting free speech doesn’t require Christians to support evil speech.

Here are some tips to help identify and differentiate between free speech, “hate speech,” censorship and “cancel culture.”

The First Amendment gives Americans the right to say almost anything they want. It also protects citizens from being forced to speak what they don’t believe.

While broad, the First Amendment does not protect every kind of speech. It does not protect obscenity or speech inciting “imminent lawless action.” Governments can further pass laws curtailing free speech if they prove the law serves a legitimate government interest and limits speech as little as possible.

Recently, local, state and federal governments have tried censoring “misinformation” and “hate speech,” two notoriously nebulous concepts with no consistent legal definition.

Both terms can be weaponized against citizens. Critics frequently tried to prevent Charlie Kirk from speaking at college campuses on the grounds he spread “hate speech.” The Biden administration censored those who claimed COVID-19 leaked from a Chinese viral laboratory for spreading misinformation. The story later proved true.

There’s no direct evidence suggesting the FCC pressured Nexstar to drop Jimmy Kimmel. If it did, however, it should not have. Federal agencies shouldn’t pressure private companies to censor unfavorable speech.

Kimmel’s right to free speech, however, does not exempt him from professional expectations of speech. Entertainment companies closely regulate what talent says on air and on social media. If the controversial host finally fell afoul of Disney’s publication standards, his brief suspension would not constitute a First Amendment violation. No one is constitutionally entitled to a television show.

Similarly, the First Amendment does not immunize Americans from the consequences of their speech.

Social standards of conduct and speech enable people to live in community by incentivizing prosocial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. Those who say vile things can — and should — face social consequences for doing so.

“Cancel culture” is a disordering of social standards in which a person faces unfair or disproportionate social consequences for their behavior.

“Cancel culture,” like “hate speech” and “misinformation,” is notoriously vague. There will always be some ambiguity about whether a person “deserves” to face social consequences. That being said, I argue “cancellations” fall into three broad categories.

Cancelling those who speak the truth.

Conservative pundit Matt Walsh argues a “cancel culture” punishes people for speaking objective truth, like arguing there are only two sexes.

Cancel culture driven by the government.

The government engages in cancel culture by artificially limiting the speech and reach of citizens. This occurred when the Biden administration pressured Twitter and Facebook to remove and limit posts that questioned government narratives about COVID-19.

Person-specific cancel culture.

Person-driven cancelations occur when a person or group determines someone “deserves” to be canceled before finding evidence to support their conclusion. The cancelers inspire social outrage by digging through the cancel-ees online footprint to find objectionable content or dirty laundry, often from years ago.

Genuine social consequences, unlike “cancel culture,” aren’t person-specific or driven by the government. They are organic reactions to real antisocial behaviors. A good example is those who have been fired from their jobs for celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death.

One of humanity’s longest standing norms is the value of human life. It is prosocial to protect human life and antisocial to take it or celebrate its end.

This norm has eroded in recent years, as evidenced by the normalization of abortion and vigilante violence. But those who celebrated Kirk’s death erroneously assumed this expectation had dissolved entirely.

The First Amendment absolutely protects speech praising Charlie Kirk’s death. But the First Amendment also protects other Americans’ right to call out this vile behavior — and report it to the posters’ respective workplaces.

Proverbs 12:18 reads, “There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing” (ESV). Believers have an obligation to use their speech wisely. The Daily Citizen invites you to use biblical discernment to determine when and how to speak truth online and in person.

When in doubt, always remember — it’s never a good idea to celebrate someone’s death on the internet.

Additional Articles and Resources

‘I Forgive Him’: Three of the Most Impactful Moments from Charlie Kirk’s Memorial

VP Vance: ‘The Most Important Truth’ Charlie Kirk Told is Jesus is Lord

Charlie Kirk: Man of Faith, Family and Fidelity

Transgender Ideology is Inherently Destructive

California State Officials Worked With Big Tech to Censor 2020 Election Posts

Colorado Bills Would Regulate ’Fake News’ in Social Media and Teach Children About ’Misinformation’ in the Media

DHS Threat Advisory Targets ‘False or Misleading Narratives’ that ‘Undermine Trust in U.S. Government Institutions’

Department of Homeland Security Launches Disinformation Governance Board

Government ‘Disinformation’ Board ‘Paused’ After Public Mockery

California Family Wins Early Legal Victory for Parental Rights, Religious Freedom

A California school district must allow parents to opt their children out of some activities pushing gender ideology, the Southern District Court of California ordered in a preliminary injunction issued last week.  

The decision is an encouraging early win for Carlos and Jenny Encinas. The parents of three young kids made the difficult decision to sue Encinitas Union School District last year after their 11-year-old son, a Christian, was forced to teach his kindergarten buddy about gender identity.

“[The preliminary injunction] prevents the school district from teaching [students] about gender ideology in the [kindergarten] buddy class program unless they provide advanced notice and opt out [opportunities],” the Encinas’ lawyer, First Liberty Attorney Kayla Toney, told First Liberty Live.

“That’s exactly what our clients were asking for all along.”

Background

The Daily Citizen interviewed Toney and Carlos shortly before the district court’s ruling. Carlos confirmed he and his wife weren’t itching for a grueling legal battle. They just wanted to opt their sons out of activities teaching gender ideology — or forcing their sons to teach gender ideology to others.

When La Costa Heights Elementary and Encinitas Union School District denied both of the Encinas’ opt-out requests, the couple had nowhere else to turn.

“We are seeking resolution from the court system because we have no other choice,” Carlos told us.

The Encinas family experienced ruthless bullying for trying to exercise their parental rights. Carlos and Jenny received threats and harassment online for being “hateful.” The couple’s two sons became targets of other children — and even adults — at school.

Eventually, the Encinas boys moved schools altogether. But the family remains determined to see their case through.

“I feel like God’s got a plan in this and chose my son and our family for a reason,” Carlos reflected. “I have absolute faith that we are part of a spiritual battle that is going to be part of an ultimate renewal.”

To read more of the Daily Citizen’s interview with Carlos, click here.

The Case

The Encinas’ case alleges Encinitas Union School District infringed on their family’s:

  • Parental rights
  • Right to freely exercise their religion
  • Free speech rights

The district violated Carlos and Jenny’s parental rights by denying their request to opt out of activities teaching gender ideology.

California law requires schools to allow parents to opt out of sex ed lessons. Encinitas Union claims this law only applies to material taught in traditional sex ed units, rather than sexual material in general. The Encinases argue parental opt-out requirements apply to all sexual content, regardless of the curricula it’s rolled into.

Toney sums up:

[The district] is claiming that they don’t have to provide [parental] opt-outs when the exact same material about sexuality and gender identity is taught in other classes, in younger grades, outside the sexual education unit.

The district also violated the Encinas family’s right to freely exercise their religion by denying their request to opt out. A school cannot constitutionally deny religious exemptions while granting other, non-religious exemptions. Toney expands:

The school is able to provide opt-outs, and is required in certain circumstances. It’s very common in a school environment.
[But] the free exercise clause says that, if there’s a system of exemptions for any reason, then religious exemptions have to be provided too. Religion can’t be treated less favorably than other interests.

Encinitas Union School District violated the Encinas’ eldest son’s free speech rights by forcing him to teach gender ideology to his kindergarten buddy. Toney explains:

Our position is that what happened to Carlos’ son was compelled speech, because the government — the school district — was using the children to teach its own message about gender that directly conflicted with [his] religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court has considered “compelled speech” a violation of the free speech clause for nearly a century.

The Ruling

The Southern District Court of California granted the Encinas family’s request for preliminary injunction against the district. The injunction will not only prevent the district from violating parents’ rights while the case is adjudicated, but also require schools like La Costa Heights to notify parents about sexualized lessons.

Until now, Carlos tells the Daily Citizen, these lessons have been shrouded in secrecy.

“In talking to other parents, we discovered a pattern in the way the school and the district suppressed objections to [inappropriate sexual material],” he explained. “It was like they wanted to hide how they were promoting some of this stuff in the classroom.”

The judge largely affirmed the Encinas’ arguments, according to Toney — an encouraging sign for future rulings. He expressed particular concern over the district’s alleged free speech violations.

“The judge here was very focused on the children, and how children have a right to believe in God,” Toney recounted to First Liberty Live. “They have a right to express their faith and they have a right to not be forced to express a message that they disagree with.”

Mahmoud v. Taylor

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case similar to the Encinas family’s just last month.

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, families of diverse faith backgrounds argue a Maryland school district violated their right to freely exercise their religion after the district taught LGBT children’s books in elementary school classes — without notice or the chance to opt out.

Like Encinitas Union School District, Montgomery County Public Schools tried to get around parental opt-out requirements by rolling inappropriate sexual material into other subjects. Outside of sex ed, Montgomery County tried to argue, the school district isn’t required to allow parents to opt out.

As the Daily Citizen previously reported, the six conservative justices seemed sympathetic to parents during oral arguments, expressing concern that Montgomery County could be burdening families’ religious exercise.

Carlos felt profound relief after listening to the case.

“It was amazing to hear some of the highest legal authorities in the land ask some of the questions we, ourselves, asked early on.” he told the Daily Citizen.

Like, “Wait a second, why can’t you guys opt us out of this? We just don’t want to participate.” To have a Supreme Court justice ask that same question over and over again, and get the same unclear explanation, and then have that justice come back and say, “Wait hold on, I’m still not understanding the answers” — that’s another kind of inspiration.

To learn more about Mahmoud v. Taylor, click here.

Why It Matters

The Daily Citizen is grateful to the Encinas family for putting themselves on the line to protect the right of all parents to raise their children according to their faith.

We will continue to cover this important case.

To read more about the Encinas’ story, click here.

Additional Articles and Resources

California Family harassed After Trying to Opt-Out of Activities Teaching Gender Ideology

Supreme Court Sympathetic to Opt-Outs for LGBT Curriculum

Common Spirit Denied Teen Body Medical Care After Parents Objected to Doctor’s Bizarre Questions

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Liberal Father Seeks to Disprove Concerns Over Sexually Explicit Books in Schools, Becomes Convinced These Books Are Not for Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

‘Everyday Americans’ Honored at Address to Congress

First lady Melania Trump invited “everyday Americans as special guests” to President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday.

Several guests had ties to family issues that are important to Focus on the Family, such as God’s design of humans as male and female; saving girls sports, serving children in the foster care system; and protecting parents’ rights to direct the educational upbringing of their children.

Attendees included family members of victims of violence, a mom whose parental rights were assailed by her daughter’s school, a young lady who had been a foster child, and a steelworker who, along with his wife, provided “a loving home to dozens of foster children.”

In addition, a few “surprise guests” attended the speech, including Jason Hartley, a young man was just accepted into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and 13-year-old D.J. Daniel, who was diagnosed with brain cancer at age seven. D.J. was made an honorary law enforcement officer of several police departments; Secret Service Director Sean Curran made him an agent of the U.S. Secret Service during the speech.

Here are three of the “everyday Americans” honored by the president and first lady involved in issues we care about.  

Payton McNabb – Athlete’s story demonstrates why we should respect the distinctions between male and female.  

The Independent Women’s Forum, where Payton serves as an ambassador, described how McNabb was injured by a transgender-identified male in a volleyball game her senior year of high school:

On September 1, 2022, during a volleyball game against a rival North Carolina high school, 17-year-old Payton McNabb received a devastating head and neck injury as the result of a spike by a male athlete who identified as transgender. …

The blow left her unconscious, and “the ball’s impact caused neurological impairments including a concussion, vision problems, and partial paralysis to the right side of her body.”

In a White House video posted on X, McNabb said she still deals with these health issues today.

The president told Payton that because of an executive order protecting girls and women’s sports, “From now on, schools will kick the men off the girls team or they will lose all federal funding.

Jeff Denard – Hardworking father and his wife generously give time and love to children in foster care.

Melania Trump described Denard, saying, “Jeff has spent nearly three decades working at a steel plant owned by Nucor Steel. His good paying, middle class job at the steel plant has allowed Jeff to serve as volunteer firefighter, provide a loving home to dozens of foster children, and organize his fellow steelworkers to respond to natural disasters, including Hurricane Helene.”

In a post on X, Denard said he and his wife, Nicole, have been married for 25 years and have seven children. He explained their work in foster care, saying,

“My wife and I are also ranch managers of the Circle Ranch, out in Danvill, Alabama. We have about 38 children on-site. We have been fostering now for about three years and have had about 41 children through our homes.”

“We are so blessed. God’s been so good to us that we’re able to do this.”

The Circle Ranch defines its purpose:

Our mission is to provide a stable, supportive, and Christ-centered environment for these children and their foster families, as well as to equip and empower them for a successful future. We believe that every child deserves a chance to grow up in a family environment that reflects the love of God.

The ranch also serves as “a hub for other foster, adoptive, or kinship families in North Alabama,” adding, “Our aim is to create a network of support and resources for all the families who are involved in this noble and challenging calling.”

January Littlejohn – Mom’s story exposes threats to parental rights in education.

Almost five years ago, January and Jeffrey Littlejohn filed a lawsuit against the Leon County School Board for violating their parental rights by secretly affirming their daughter, who was only 13 years old at the time, in her gender confusion, as the Daily Citizen reported.

Three staff members met with the girl and developed a “Transgender/Non-Conforming Student Support Plan.” The staff asked the girl how she wanted to be identified, what pronouns to use when speaking about her, whether she wanted to use the girls or boys bathroom, and whether she felt more comfortable rooming with boys or girls on overnight trips – all without her parents’ knowledge or consent.

In a video on X describing what happened to their daughter, Littlejohn explained the damage inflicted on their daughter, saying, “We learned that the school had socially transitioned our daughter, where they asked her questions that would have absolutely impacted her safety and had harmful impacts on her psychological and physical well-being.”

She said that the school’s tactics were designed “to effectively deceive parents like us that these social transition plans ever happen.”

The first lady’s announcement about Littlejohn’s invitation described the harms from hiding information from parents, “The school drove a wedge between January’s daughter and her parents, and deceived January about their covert plan to transition her daughter.”

Related Articles and Resources

‘Equipping Parents For Back-To-School’ – Updated Resource Empowers Parents

Florida Parents Sue School for Helping Teen ‘Transition’ – Without Their Knowledge or Consent

Male and Female Biology Matters

Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Women’s Sports and Spaces

What’s Your School District’s ‘Transgender’ Policy?

Yet Another Man Steals Women’s Trophies

Foundational Values

Resources: Foster Care and Adoption

Wait No More

Young America’s Foundation Wins Free Speech Victory at Aeronautics University

The conservative activist group Young America’s Foundation (YAF) won a free speech victory over Embry-Riddle Aeronautics University (ERAU). The university had repeatedly shut down efforts by the school to host campus activities, including a “Where Does Life Begin” prolife event, a “Stand with Israel” day on Holocaust Remembrance Day, and a “9/11: Never Forget” memorial.

YAF Chief Communications Officer posted on X that ERAU supported Transgender Day of Remembrance, but the university wouldn’t allow detransitioner Chloe Cole on campus to share a different viewpoint on transgenderism. 

Benjamin Isbell, chairman of the YAF chapter at Embry-Riddle, told his story in an article, “My ‘Conservative’ School Shut Down My YAF Events. I Fought Back and Won.”

Isbell described why he choose ERAU, which is located in Prescott, Arizona, “As a veteran, I was attracted to the school because of the perceived conservative atmosphere on campus.”

But when he began heading up the YAF chapter, he found “the school was anything but conservative.”

He then explained that the school turned against freedom of speech on campus:

In October 2024, the school banned any public activity they declared as “political” or “religious.” No support for Israel, no discussion of pro-life ideas, nothing. Every activity that I had planned, which included hosting an event with Chloe Cole, was banned.  Yet, the school approved a pro “trans day of visibility” event to occur without issue.

After meeting with then Interim Chancellor Dr. Ken Witcher, Isbell said, “In the end, I was told essentially, ‘If you don’t like our policies, get a lawyer.'”

So he did.

YAF filed a discrimination complaint with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The complaint lists the other conservative events and activism blocked by ERAU:

  1. A “Biology Basics activism project” intended to counter the lie at the heart of transgenderism.
  2. Handing out flyers to promote a speech by truth-teller, detransitioner, and transgender surgery opponent Chloe Cole.  
  3. A “Funeral for Halloween” activism project lampooning “politically correct” restrictions on costumes that commit “cultural appropriation.”
  4. A “Where Does Life Begin?” project showing the various stages of fetal development to expose students to the reality of life in the womb.

Amongst a list of allegations, the complaint asked the OCR to investigate the school for violating presidential executive orders to end illegal discrimination in federally-funded schools, saying “ERAU prioritizes so-called secular speech and discriminates against religious students.”

The complaint also said, “ERAU’s counseling services recognize and push transgender ideology, including by recognizing sex-based distinctions that are not legitimate under law.” YAF said this violates Title IX, a recent Dear Colleague letter from the OCR, and various presidential executive orders.

Isbell said the school finally responded when faced with the complaint, “Less than a week after filing our complaint, ERAU mysteriously changed its mind and approved Chloe Cole to speak on campus.”

YAF posted the victory on X, with a video of Isbell asking Cole a question about the series of events at the university. Cole said, “Our universities used to be grounds for free speech … By barring people like me from speaking on your campuses, you are choosing to ignore the truth.”

It’s discriminatory for schools to treat conservative or religious groups differently from others. Thankfully, groups are pushing back against this disparate treatment. We’ll see if ERAU has learned its lesson and completely changes its unfair policies.

Related articles and resources:

Department of Education: Schools Embracing DEI Will Lose Funding

Female Law Students Punished for Objecting to Men in Women’s Restrooms, File Lawsuit

Harvard Protects Free Speech of Antisemites But Not Those Who Believe the Truth of Male and Female

Is David French Right — Is Our Religious Liberty Secure?

Student Asks Court to Uphold Right to Wear ‘There are Only Two Genders’ Shirt  

Teacher Wrongly Fired for Refusing to Use ‘Preferred Pronouns’ Wins $575,000

University of Iowa Caught Discriminating Against Faith-Based Student Clubs For the Second Time

Image from Shutterstock