July 31, 2023 • 23 mins
Kristen Waggoner, CEO and President of Alliance Defending Freedom, joins Lisa to discuss the importance of free speech in America and her recent victory in the Supreme Court case 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis. She highlights the attack on free speech, particularly in cases involving religious beliefs and traditional marriage. Waggoner emphasizes the need to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of their beliefs, and the dangers of censorship and media distortion. She also addresses the decline in religion and the impact of social media on free speech. Waggoner calls for a return to first principles and the defense of the First Amendment. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the iHeartRadio Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday and Thursday.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
We all know that free speech is under attack in America.
We all saw how the government intervened heading into the
twenty twenty election trying to stifle the Hunter Biden story.
We also saw during COVID how the government intervened to
try to censor dissent on COVID. So we're going to
talk to a woman who has fought for free speech
before the Supreme Court three cases.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
In fact. Her name is Kristin Wagner.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
She's the CEO and president of Alliance Defending Freedom. She
just won a big case for free speech, a huge
victory that was just handed down. The case is called
three zero three Creative LLC versus ellenis Lorie Smith, who
she was the main counsel for as a Christian graphic
artist and website designer who believes in traditional marriage. We're
(00:46):
going to talk to Kristin about that case, free speech
in America, and why more Americans don't support free speech today.
We've seen sentiments change a little bit, particularly among young people,
So why is that. Stay tuned for Kristin Waggon. Kristen,
thanks so much for coming on the show. This is
(01:08):
the first time you're coming on, so I appreciate you
joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
What's it like?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
This is the third case you've argued before the Supreme
Court that we're about to get into. Three h three
Creative LLC Versus eleenis what's it like to argue before
the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
It's a great privilege. I think that any lawyer.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
That has argued before the Court, regardless of their ideological perspectives,
would have to conceive that those nine justices are the
best and the brightest.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And it's sort of like a lawyer super bowl.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
You want to be at your peak and you know
that you'll get great questions and that the justices will
thoughtfully consider the argument.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Tell us a little bit about this case, what started it?
Break it down a little bit for us.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sure well. Laurie Smith is a creative artist.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
She launched her career as a graphic and website designer
working for of all people or of all institutions, the
government of Colorado, which is who she ended up suing
in this case. And then as she began her career,
began to realize that she wanted to be able to
own her own business and design websites that were consistent
(02:17):
with her beliefs that promoted projects and ideas that she
felt like should be promoted in the public square. So
she launched three h three Creative and that's a website
and graphic design firm. They create custom websites for all
kinds of different projects. In twenty sixteen, she wanted to
(02:38):
begin to expand the business into custom wedding websites, and
Laurie had a front row seat to see what Colorado's
position on that would be, as it was aggressively prosecuting
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop during that time, and
Colorado said that if an artist was creating custom speech
(02:59):
that would promote their face view on marriage between a
man and a woman, that they must also accept and
create custom messages about weddings that they disagreed with and
that violated their faith. And so Laurie filed a case
against Colorado, claiming arguing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional,
and that went to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
It seems like a lot.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Of these cases are coming out of Colorado just because
there are a bunch of you know, commie liberals or
what's the detail.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Well, you know, I do think it's unusual the aggressive
posture that Colorado has taken in these cases, not just
in Laurie's case, but for the last twelve years, including.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
In Jack Phillips case.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Jack is now on his third case involving this issue.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
But it wouldn't be true to say it's only Colorado.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
A number of left leaning states are misusing non discrimination
laws and they're using them as what weapons to silence
and punish those who have a different view of sexual
ethics than those in power. So we have cases involving
photographers and bloggers and filmmakers and calligraphers and painters, and
some of those people even face jail time if they
(04:17):
don't create messages that violate their convictions.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And what's it like for you know, Lourie Smith or
Jack Phillips to go through this. I mean, obviously they're slandered,
they're smeared, they're labeled as big as what's this been
like for them?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
It's horrible, you know.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Even since the victory at the US Supreme Court that
we had a few weeks ago, which was a broad
victory for everyone, Laurie has faced all kinds of death
threats and.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Just horrible things.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
And I think the media has misrepresented, not unintentionally but
actually intentionally misrepresented what the Court's decision was and the
facts of Laurie's case. Because Laurie serves everyone, She designs
messages for people from all walks of life. She has
clients who identifies LGBT right now. She always makes her
(05:05):
decisions about what speech to create based on the message
that she's being asked to speak and to create. And
that's a distinction that's very important in this area of
the law. It's about the message, not the person.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Why do you think the media goes to such lengths
to distore and smear in these particular cases.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
In particular, I think there's an effort to delegitimize the
Supreme Court, and there is an effort to ensure that
anyone who believes marriages between a man and a woman,
or who ascribes to the traditional sexual ethics that are
articulated in all of the Abrahamic face that if they
can compare those people to bigots and suggests that it's
(05:45):
not about the message and malign them, they'll somehow be
able to silence and shut down the debate on these issues.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
You've been following this for a long time.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Free speech in America is it under attack?
Speaker 4 (05:56):
It absolutely is under attack, and thankfully the court said
in the three or three creative decision that no one
can be forced to say something that they don't believe.
Laurie didn't just stand for her own rights, but the
person who identifies as LGBT and who's a website designer,
this protects her rights as well not to have to
create a message that violates her convictions. Or even we
(06:19):
can think along political ideology lines because these laws, some
of these laws cover political ideology. Had Laurie lost her case,
a Democrat or a Republican could be forced to have
to write speeches for the opposite party.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And lastly, I'll just say at ADF, we're in international ministry.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
We have about four hundred and fifty team members and
we're around the globe. We're mainly known for our US work,
but by having a bird's eye view in the world
as to what's going on, we are the last country
in the Western world that is resisting the kind of
government censorship that is blanketing Europe and Canada, New Zealand
and Australia.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So we have to stand for free speech in this moment.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Think there's been a shift, as you noted what do
you think that stems from.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
You know, I heard a quote the other day.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
I think it was from Archbishop Shappoo, but I haven't
been able to validate where it came from. But it
essentially says something to the effect of evil preaches tolerance
until it becomes until it has power, and then it
turns into coercion or something like that. And I really
do believe that we're seeing right now. Some are misguided,
but other are intentional about it. Those who are in
(07:29):
power try to use the law as a weapon to silence, punish,
and censor enemies, and in that vein I think it's
important to realize when you look around the world, the
first thing that tyrants do is shut down the right
of free speech because it prohibits dissent. And that's what
this is about right now, is whether those in power
(07:51):
will be able to use the law to silence dissent
and to shut down debate.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Do you think any of.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
It aligns with a decline in religion in the country.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Think think that the.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Effort to coerce people to violate their convictions about sexual
ethics does have something to do with the decline of religion.
I also think that we in some quarters have begun
to translate fundamental rights into any right that has to
do with a desire that we want, and that it's
okay to silence other people that don't agree with us.
(08:27):
So I think historically religious principles have taught us. The
Judaeo Christian model teaches us that free speech is an
inalienable right. Religious freedom is an innalien right and it
extends to everyone, not just those who believe, and we're
seeing an effort to sidestep that right now and abandon
those tenants.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
We've also seen a media that behaves more like state
run media versus you know, independent the fourth estate, which
it has been more so you know, traditionally, but not
as of late. How big of an impact do you
think that is, how on free speech in America?
Speaker 4 (09:02):
I think it's having a tremendous impact. I mean, the
First Amendment applies to what government does, and that's an
important principle that we need to make clear. This case
was about what the government could do and how they
could use the law to censor someone. But we're also
seeing this sort of cancel culture moment where other powerful
institutions like the media are refusing to carry other viewpoints.
(09:24):
They're refusing to essentially engage in what would be more
objective truth telling.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
I think great example of that.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Is after the three or three creative decision, Nadine Strassen
and I, for example, wrote an op ed together, and
Nadine is the former head of the ACLU. We could
not get a major outlet to publish that op ed
because they simply didn't want to cover a former head
of the ACLU, A current head of the ADF saying
(09:52):
this decision is good for everyone.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Well, I can share that pain.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
I was shopping at outbed about not getting vaccinated and
it was I think the Washington Post either responded with
good luck or stay safe. I think it was stay safe,
and I've responded you too. I don't think they would
take any offense for me in the future.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You know how big of a concern do you have?
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Obviously the Supreme Court is under attack right now. You
know the left would love to pack the Supreme Court.
You know the justices have literally had their lives threatened,
you know, assassination attempts against Justice Kavanaugh. How soon until
we have a packed court.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I hope we never have a pack court. I mean
with striking about this is you know, there have been
a few years now lately where we've had decisions that
have protected rights for everyone, free speech for everyone, even
those who disagree with Lorie. That's what the Court stood
for in this decision, and the progressive left seems to
be losing their mind over it, and it is deeply
(10:56):
concerning that they are abandoning the principles that have really
been time tested, that we have honored in so many
past historical moments. As this ree N three creative decision says,
it looks back eighty years to the height of World
War Two, where we protected speech that wasn't necessarily promoting
national security or promoting America, and we protected that. We've
(11:19):
protected so much speech over the years that we've disagreed
with because we know that we put up with speech
we might consider offensive in order to explore and pursue truth,
but also to curb government authority. And if it's a
choice between freedom and giving the government the power, I'm
choosing freedom every time throughout history.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
And look, when authoritarians take over, communists take over, and
one of the first things they do is they controlled
the media. They control the flow of information, and they
also control what people can say.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
There's a quote from Frederick Douglass and that's during the
abolitionist movement way back when, and he's warning even then
that you know, free speech is so essential to government
and that it's the first thing that tyrants takeaway quick
commercial break.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
More with Kristen on the other side, I worry since
COVID there was such an effort to shut people down,
to censor, whether it was you know, these big tech companies,
but also the government collaborating and working with big tech
to stifle voices. Is stifful opposition or people you know,
(12:25):
challenging the accepted narrative, or even with the Hunter Biden story,
you know, talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Well, we raised it earlier in the sense of, you know,
we have the first Amendment that stops the government from
censoring speech, and that's what the three h three creative
Decision was about. But we also have other institutions that
seem more than willing to misrepresent what's happening in the
world to fit a particular narrative, and instead of reporting
on the news, there's an ideological purpose that they have
(12:54):
to being and I think that's harmful. We can see
even during COVID, some of the narrative that shod and
that now many of us believe wasn't actually true, and
the harm that that causes. We know that when we
have free speech and we can enter into public discourse,
that's an opportunity to test ideas, to debate ideas, and
to expose lives, and we all benefit from having more information.
(13:17):
So it does great harm, regardless of what our views
are on COVID or vaccinations, when we have that information limited,
the truth limited, even if we think it's you know,
we don't necessarily agree with it.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
That gives us less information on which to make our decisions,
and that's harmful for all of us.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
How do you change perspectives? How do you change opinions
on this? Particularly when you look at young people, they
more and more believe in censorship.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
I think it comes down to what we're teaching in
our schools and more than anything, what we're teaching at
our kitchen tables with our kids. You know, parents have
abdicated their responsibility, I think, to teach their children these
fundamental principles that have served humanity so well and served
this nation so well, about why speech matters, about why
(14:08):
truth exists, and that the First Amendment is a golden
rule that we have to protect the freedom of others
in order to have freedom ourselves, and that lesson seems
to have been lost in recent years, but I don't
think it's too late. I mean, at ADF, we had
the privilege of training the next generation of law students,
and I see the passion that they have on these issues,
(14:31):
and my hope is that it's turning around, and we're
also working to ensure that parents continue to have the
right to be able to teach their children consistent with
their faith.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
What led you to work for ADF, Well.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
It actually I was in private practice for about sixteen
years in Seattle, and it was two cases that I
think for me as a person of faith, that I
believe God used in my life to just get me
to take that jump into the nonprofit world and do
this work full time.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Case was called Stormans and it involved.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
A fourth generation family owned business that was a pharmacy
and the state of Washington was trying to force that
pharmacy to dispense abortifacient drugs, even though the pharmacy was
willing to refer patients to some thirty pharmacies that were
within five miles that carried these drugs. And then it
was also the Arlen's Flowers case, which involved the Washington
(15:25):
florist who was designing all kinds of arrangements for our
customer who identified as gay, but when she declined to
design custom arrangements for his wedding, the Attorney General of
Washington didn't just sue Barnell's business, which she'd had for
forty years, but sued her personally, putting her personal.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Assets at risk.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
And I thought at that point I wanted to jump
in full time because it was so apparent to me
that people of faith were being vilified for the beliefs
that most of Western civilization has had since the dawn
of time.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Think social media plays a role in some of this
new age vilification in the sense of it really creates
sort of this mob mentality. And also I think people
are afraid to not go along with a program. You know,
everyone's wired to just want to go along with the mob,
and the mob isn't necessarily a majority, they're just the
(16:20):
loudest voices on social media or what have you.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Absolutely, I was I think the first real experience I
had with the mob was at Yale Law School a
couple of years ago, and I was there to speak
on free speech with the leader of the American Humanist Association,
and we were there to model stability to the law students,
to model that we can disagree on a lot of
(16:44):
different issues, but that we stand together on how important
speech is. And a student mob of about one hundred
and twenty engaged in some really horrific conduct that we
were eventually escorted out by police to a police car.
And experiencing that in that moment, I can totally understand
how people can be afraid when we're resulting to threats
(17:07):
of physical violence, and even in social media when your name.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Is drug through the mud, as has happened to.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Laurie Smith and frankly to her lawyers in the last
two weeks, where just outright lies have been told about us,
and to not have the ability to get word out
on what the truth is because either no one will
print it or the AP runs with the story that's
just factually incorrect.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What do you think law schools are teaching now about
the First Amendment?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
I have no idea I shouldn't say that in that
like to make a coherent theory out of it is
just difficult. I can tell you what I see them modeling,
which is they don't model that golden rule. They don't
model the fact that when we are exposed to ideas
that we dislike, it can actually make us better.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
It can make us sharper, it can help us understand
truth more.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
And so, especially in the law schools, we're seeing students
that are simply unable to engage in debate, and they
can't debate, which makes me wonder, how can you have
a justice system that works If you can't tolerate someone
that you disagree with and you can't point out why
they're wrong, all you can do is physically threaten them,
shot them down, and call them names.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, I worry that we have law schools across America
that are pumping out future lawyers, future Supreme Court justices
who don't believe in the Constitution and the rule of
law or anything that holds this country together.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Still, it is concerning, and my only hope is that
you know, out of the Yale Law School, there are
a couple of other incidents right in that same time
period with other conservative speakers on law school campuses and
the schools had to start to respond and defend themselves,
and federal judges starting putting pressure on those schools to say,
you're not teaching these students what they need to be
zealous advocates and to meaningfully participate in the judicial system.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
So I hope that that.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Pressure continues and that they again return to first principles
on why the First Amendment is so important. But I
am concerned, and you referenced the need for sort of
courage against this cancel culture mob, and unfortunately we don't
see that very often in university administration. They are some
(19:28):
of the most weak need officials right now in this country.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, and it's also hard for students who believe in
free speech or who are conservative on these campuses because
you have the college administrators, you have the teachers, you
have you know, other students. I mean, you're essentially an
odd man out on campus. I'm sure it's brutal.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
It is.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
We litigate more cases on behalf of students than any
other conservative public interest group that I've seen, and there
are some four hundred and fifty victories that we've had,
but they just keep coming because administrative officials will not
abide by the law and so conservative and religious students
have to stand up for their rights, and even when
we win, they will try to change the policy back
(20:12):
or a new method. For example, we've had a couple
of cases this year where they have agreed to enter
no contact orders against students who have articulated conservative or
religious viewpoints, suggesting that there are microaggressions when someone utters
a conservative viewpoint, and we have got to beat that
back and ensure that universities pay a hefty price when
(20:34):
they suppress the speech of students. But students have to
have more courage too, and it's hard to sue your school.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Well, I mean, we saw that recently with the affirmative
action case. I can't remember specifically what Harvard said, but
they basically put out a statement saying they're going.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
To skirt around the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
I'd said, that's what they do.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
And this issue of qualified immunity, which is probably taking
us down a rabbit trail, but there's essentially a concept
in the law that says, you know, the government officials
can't necessarily be held accountable monetarily unless they have violated
a very clear ruling or a very clear law. And
we're trying to establish those very clear rulings and very
(21:13):
clear laws so that it hurts when the government violates
our rights. And that's a principle that I think those
on the left and the right can agree to. That's
actually a part of the second case that I argued
before the Court had to do with if your constitutional
rights are violated, but you can't really put a price
tag on it, Can the government just get off?
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Do they just get a free pass?
Speaker 4 (21:36):
And the Court said no, there are no free passes
to violating constitutional rights.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Kristen, Is there anything else you want to leave us
with about the First Amendment or free speech in America?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
It's worth standing up for so many times.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
I think we want to stand first of all for
our own right to speech, but we need to understand
that in order to protect our right to be able
to speak and live and think consistent with our beliefs,
we need to stand for the rights of others in
this space. It isn't a rule that goes one way,
but it's worth protecting because we don't want to be
forced to betray our conscience and we don't want to
(22:10):
be forced to say things that we don't believe. It
benefits everyone, and I think The last thing I would
just say is.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Read the decision.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
I would encourage people to read the three h three
creative decision. The narrative that the Associated Press and others
have put out about, well, it might be a fake case.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Or it's not a real ruling, or it hurts or discriminates.
It's just not true. And when you read the decision,
you know that Christin, appreciate.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
The work you do, President of Alliance Defending Freedom. Thank
you for what you do, and thank you for winnings.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Well, thank you, it's our priva.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
It was Kristin Wagner with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Appreciate
her taking the time to come on the show. Appreciate
you guys at home for listening. Thank John Cassio, my producer,
for putting the show together as always every Monday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. Feel free to
drop us a review, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Until next time, take care,
We all know that free speech is under attack in America.
We all saw how the government intervened heading into the
twenty twenty election trying to stifle the Hunter Biden story.
We also saw during COVID how the government intervened to
try to censor dissent on COVID. So we're going to
talk to a woman who has fought for free speech
before the Supreme Court three cases.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
In fact. Her name is Kristin Wagner.
Speaker 1 (00:24):
She's the CEO and president of Alliance Defending Freedom. She
just won a big case for free speech, a huge
victory that was just handed down. The case is called
three zero three Creative LLC versus ellenis Lorie Smith, who
she was the main counsel for as a Christian graphic
artist and website designer who believes in traditional marriage. We're
(00:46):
going to talk to Kristin about that case, free speech
in America, and why more Americans don't support free speech today.
We've seen sentiments change a little bit, particularly among young people,
So why is that. Stay tuned for Kristin Waggon. Kristen,
thanks so much for coming on the show. This is
(01:08):
the first time you're coming on, so I appreciate you
joining us.
Speaker 3 (01:11):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (01:12):
What's it like?
Speaker 1 (01:13):
This is the third case you've argued before the Supreme
Court that we're about to get into. Three h three
Creative LLC Versus eleenis what's it like to argue before
the Supreme Court?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
It's a great privilege. I think that any lawyer.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
That has argued before the Court, regardless of their ideological perspectives,
would have to conceive that those nine justices are the
best and the brightest.
Speaker 3 (01:37):
And it's sort of like a lawyer super bowl.
Speaker 4 (01:41):
You want to be at your peak and you know
that you'll get great questions and that the justices will
thoughtfully consider the argument.
Speaker 1 (01:48):
Tell us a little bit about this case, what started it?
Break it down a little bit for us.
Speaker 3 (01:53):
Sure well. Laurie Smith is a creative artist.
Speaker 4 (01:56):
She launched her career as a graphic and website designer
working for of all people or of all institutions, the
government of Colorado, which is who she ended up suing
in this case. And then as she began her career,
began to realize that she wanted to be able to
own her own business and design websites that were consistent
(02:17):
with her beliefs that promoted projects and ideas that she
felt like should be promoted in the public square. So
she launched three h three Creative and that's a website
and graphic design firm. They create custom websites for all
kinds of different projects. In twenty sixteen, she wanted to
(02:38):
begin to expand the business into custom wedding websites, and
Laurie had a front row seat to see what Colorado's
position on that would be, as it was aggressively prosecuting
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop during that time, and
Colorado said that if an artist was creating custom speech
(02:59):
that would promote their face view on marriage between a
man and a woman, that they must also accept and
create custom messages about weddings that they disagreed with and
that violated their faith. And so Laurie filed a case
against Colorado, claiming arguing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional,
and that went to the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 2 (03:20):
It seems like a lot.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Of these cases are coming out of Colorado just because
there are a bunch of you know, commie liberals or
what's the detail.
Speaker 4 (03:31):
Well, you know, I do think it's unusual the aggressive
posture that Colorado has taken in these cases, not just
in Laurie's case, but for the last twelve years, including.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
In Jack Phillips case.
Speaker 4 (03:47):
Jack is now on his third case involving this issue.
Speaker 3 (03:51):
But it wouldn't be true to say it's only Colorado.
Speaker 4 (03:54):
A number of left leaning states are misusing non discrimination
laws and they're using them as what weapons to silence
and punish those who have a different view of sexual
ethics than those in power. So we have cases involving
photographers and bloggers and filmmakers and calligraphers and painters, and
some of those people even face jail time if they
(04:17):
don't create messages that violate their convictions.
Speaker 1 (04:20):
And what's it like for you know, Lourie Smith or
Jack Phillips to go through this. I mean, obviously they're slandered,
they're smeared, they're labeled as big as what's this been
like for them?
Speaker 3 (04:30):
It's horrible, you know.
Speaker 4 (04:32):
Even since the victory at the US Supreme Court that
we had a few weeks ago, which was a broad
victory for everyone, Laurie has faced all kinds of death
threats and.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Just horrible things.
Speaker 4 (04:44):
And I think the media has misrepresented, not unintentionally but
actually intentionally misrepresented what the Court's decision was and the
facts of Laurie's case. Because Laurie serves everyone, She designs
messages for people from all walks of life. She has
clients who identifies LGBT right now. She always makes her
(05:05):
decisions about what speech to create based on the message
that she's being asked to speak and to create. And
that's a distinction that's very important in this area of
the law. It's about the message, not the person.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
Why do you think the media goes to such lengths
to distore and smear in these particular cases.
Speaker 4 (05:23):
In particular, I think there's an effort to delegitimize the
Supreme Court, and there is an effort to ensure that
anyone who believes marriages between a man and a woman,
or who ascribes to the traditional sexual ethics that are
articulated in all of the Abrahamic face that if they
can compare those people to bigots and suggests that it's
(05:45):
not about the message and malign them, they'll somehow be
able to silence and shut down the debate on these issues.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
You've been following this for a long time.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Free speech in America is it under attack?
Speaker 4 (05:56):
It absolutely is under attack, and thankfully the court said
in the three or three creative decision that no one
can be forced to say something that they don't believe.
Laurie didn't just stand for her own rights, but the
person who identifies as LGBT and who's a website designer,
this protects her rights as well not to have to
create a message that violates her convictions. Or even we
(06:19):
can think along political ideology lines because these laws, some
of these laws cover political ideology. Had Laurie lost her case,
a Democrat or a Republican could be forced to have
to write speeches for the opposite party.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
And lastly, I'll just say at ADF, we're in international ministry.
Speaker 4 (06:36):
We have about four hundred and fifty team members and
we're around the globe. We're mainly known for our US work,
but by having a bird's eye view in the world
as to what's going on, we are the last country
in the Western world that is resisting the kind of
government censorship that is blanketing Europe and Canada, New Zealand
and Australia.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
So we have to stand for free speech in this moment.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Think there's been a shift, as you noted what do
you think that stems from.
Speaker 3 (07:05):
You know, I heard a quote the other day.
Speaker 4 (07:07):
I think it was from Archbishop Shappoo, but I haven't
been able to validate where it came from. But it
essentially says something to the effect of evil preaches tolerance
until it becomes until it has power, and then it
turns into coercion or something like that. And I really
do believe that we're seeing right now. Some are misguided,
but other are intentional about it. Those who are in
(07:29):
power try to use the law as a weapon to silence, punish,
and censor enemies, and in that vein I think it's
important to realize when you look around the world, the
first thing that tyrants do is shut down the right
of free speech because it prohibits dissent. And that's what
this is about right now, is whether those in power
(07:51):
will be able to use the law to silence dissent
and to shut down debate.
Speaker 2 (07:56):
Do you think any of.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
It aligns with a decline in religion in the country.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Think think that the.
Speaker 4 (08:02):
Effort to coerce people to violate their convictions about sexual
ethics does have something to do with the decline of religion.
I also think that we in some quarters have begun
to translate fundamental rights into any right that has to
do with a desire that we want, and that it's
okay to silence other people that don't agree with us.
(08:27):
So I think historically religious principles have taught us. The
Judaeo Christian model teaches us that free speech is an
inalienable right. Religious freedom is an innalien right and it
extends to everyone, not just those who believe, and we're
seeing an effort to sidestep that right now and abandon
those tenants.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
We've also seen a media that behaves more like state
run media versus you know, independent the fourth estate, which
it has been more so you know, traditionally, but not
as of late. How big of an impact do you
think that is, how on free speech in America?
Speaker 4 (09:02):
I think it's having a tremendous impact. I mean, the
First Amendment applies to what government does, and that's an
important principle that we need to make clear. This case
was about what the government could do and how they
could use the law to censor someone. But we're also
seeing this sort of cancel culture moment where other powerful
institutions like the media are refusing to carry other viewpoints.
(09:24):
They're refusing to essentially engage in what would be more
objective truth telling.
Speaker 3 (09:30):
I think great example of that.
Speaker 4 (09:32):
Is after the three or three creative decision, Nadine Strassen
and I, for example, wrote an op ed together, and
Nadine is the former head of the ACLU. We could
not get a major outlet to publish that op ed
because they simply didn't want to cover a former head
of the ACLU, A current head of the ADF saying
(09:52):
this decision is good for everyone.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Well, I can share that pain.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
I was shopping at outbed about not getting vaccinated and
it was I think the Washington Post either responded with
good luck or stay safe. I think it was stay safe,
and I've responded you too. I don't think they would
take any offense for me in the future.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
You know how big of a concern do you have?
Speaker 1 (10:15):
Obviously the Supreme Court is under attack right now. You
know the left would love to pack the Supreme Court.
You know the justices have literally had their lives threatened,
you know, assassination attempts against Justice Kavanaugh. How soon until
we have a packed court.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
I hope we never have a pack court. I mean
with striking about this is you know, there have been
a few years now lately where we've had decisions that
have protected rights for everyone, free speech for everyone, even
those who disagree with Lorie. That's what the Court stood
for in this decision, and the progressive left seems to
be losing their mind over it, and it is deeply
(10:56):
concerning that they are abandoning the principles that have really
been time tested, that we have honored in so many
past historical moments. As this ree N three creative decision says,
it looks back eighty years to the height of World
War Two, where we protected speech that wasn't necessarily promoting
national security or promoting America, and we protected that. We've
(11:19):
protected so much speech over the years that we've disagreed
with because we know that we put up with speech
we might consider offensive in order to explore and pursue truth,
but also to curb government authority. And if it's a
choice between freedom and giving the government the power, I'm
choosing freedom every time throughout history.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
And look, when authoritarians take over, communists take over, and
one of the first things they do is they controlled
the media. They control the flow of information, and they
also control what people can say.
Speaker 3 (11:48):
Absolutely.
Speaker 4 (11:49):
There's a quote from Frederick Douglass and that's during the
abolitionist movement way back when, and he's warning even then
that you know, free speech is so essential to government
and that it's the first thing that tyrants takeaway quick
commercial break.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
More with Kristen on the other side, I worry since
COVID there was such an effort to shut people down,
to censor, whether it was you know, these big tech companies,
but also the government collaborating and working with big tech
to stifle voices. Is stifful opposition or people you know,
(12:25):
challenging the accepted narrative, or even with the Hunter Biden story,
you know, talk a little bit about that.
Speaker 4 (12:31):
Well, we raised it earlier in the sense of, you know,
we have the first Amendment that stops the government from
censoring speech, and that's what the three h three creative
Decision was about. But we also have other institutions that
seem more than willing to misrepresent what's happening in the
world to fit a particular narrative, and instead of reporting
on the news, there's an ideological purpose that they have
(12:54):
to being and I think that's harmful. We can see
even during COVID, some of the narrative that shod and
that now many of us believe wasn't actually true, and
the harm that that causes. We know that when we
have free speech and we can enter into public discourse,
that's an opportunity to test ideas, to debate ideas, and
to expose lives, and we all benefit from having more information.
(13:17):
So it does great harm, regardless of what our views
are on COVID or vaccinations, when we have that information limited,
the truth limited, even if we think it's you know,
we don't necessarily agree with it.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
That gives us less information on which to make our decisions,
and that's harmful for all of us.
Speaker 1 (13:35):
How do you change perspectives? How do you change opinions
on this? Particularly when you look at young people, they
more and more believe in censorship.
Speaker 4 (13:45):
I think it comes down to what we're teaching in
our schools and more than anything, what we're teaching at
our kitchen tables with our kids. You know, parents have
abdicated their responsibility, I think, to teach their children these
fundamental principles that have served humanity so well and served
this nation so well, about why speech matters, about why
(14:08):
truth exists, and that the First Amendment is a golden
rule that we have to protect the freedom of others
in order to have freedom ourselves, and that lesson seems
to have been lost in recent years, but I don't
think it's too late. I mean, at ADF, we had
the privilege of training the next generation of law students,
and I see the passion that they have on these issues,
(14:31):
and my hope is that it's turning around, and we're
also working to ensure that parents continue to have the
right to be able to teach their children consistent with
their faith.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
What led you to work for ADF, Well.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
It actually I was in private practice for about sixteen
years in Seattle, and it was two cases that I
think for me as a person of faith, that I
believe God used in my life to just get me
to take that jump into the nonprofit world and do
this work full time.
Speaker 3 (15:00):
Case was called Stormans and it involved.
Speaker 4 (15:01):
A fourth generation family owned business that was a pharmacy
and the state of Washington was trying to force that
pharmacy to dispense abortifacient drugs, even though the pharmacy was
willing to refer patients to some thirty pharmacies that were
within five miles that carried these drugs. And then it
was also the Arlen's Flowers case, which involved the Washington
(15:25):
florist who was designing all kinds of arrangements for our
customer who identified as gay, but when she declined to
design custom arrangements for his wedding, the Attorney General of
Washington didn't just sue Barnell's business, which she'd had for
forty years, but sued her personally, putting her personal.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
Assets at risk.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
And I thought at that point I wanted to jump
in full time because it was so apparent to me
that people of faith were being vilified for the beliefs
that most of Western civilization has had since the dawn
of time.
Speaker 1 (15:59):
Think social media plays a role in some of this
new age vilification in the sense of it really creates
sort of this mob mentality. And also I think people
are afraid to not go along with a program. You know,
everyone's wired to just want to go along with the mob,
and the mob isn't necessarily a majority, they're just the
(16:20):
loudest voices on social media or what have you.
Speaker 4 (16:23):
Absolutely, I was I think the first real experience I
had with the mob was at Yale Law School a
couple of years ago, and I was there to speak
on free speech with the leader of the American Humanist Association,
and we were there to model stability to the law students,
to model that we can disagree on a lot of
(16:44):
different issues, but that we stand together on how important
speech is. And a student mob of about one hundred
and twenty engaged in some really horrific conduct that we
were eventually escorted out by police to a police car.
And experiencing that in that moment, I can totally understand
how people can be afraid when we're resulting to threats
(17:07):
of physical violence, and even in social media when your name.
Speaker 3 (17:11):
Is drug through the mud, as has happened to.
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Laurie Smith and frankly to her lawyers in the last
two weeks, where just outright lies have been told about us,
and to not have the ability to get word out
on what the truth is because either no one will
print it or the AP runs with the story that's
just factually incorrect.
Speaker 1 (17:32):
What do you think law schools are teaching now about
the First Amendment?
Speaker 4 (17:41):
I have no idea I shouldn't say that in that
like to make a coherent theory out of it is
just difficult. I can tell you what I see them modeling,
which is they don't model that golden rule. They don't
model the fact that when we are exposed to ideas
that we dislike, it can actually make us better.
Speaker 3 (18:02):
It can make us sharper, it can help us understand
truth more.
Speaker 4 (18:05):
And so, especially in the law schools, we're seeing students
that are simply unable to engage in debate, and they
can't debate, which makes me wonder, how can you have
a justice system that works If you can't tolerate someone
that you disagree with and you can't point out why
they're wrong, all you can do is physically threaten them,
shot them down, and call them names.
Speaker 1 (18:27):
Well, I worry that we have law schools across America
that are pumping out future lawyers, future Supreme Court justices
who don't believe in the Constitution and the rule of
law or anything that holds this country together.
Speaker 4 (18:42):
Still, it is concerning, and my only hope is that
you know, out of the Yale Law School, there are
a couple of other incidents right in that same time
period with other conservative speakers on law school campuses and
the schools had to start to respond and defend themselves,
and federal judges starting putting pressure on those schools to say,
you're not teaching these students what they need to be
zealous advocates and to meaningfully participate in the judicial system.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
So I hope that that.
Speaker 4 (19:07):
Pressure continues and that they again return to first principles
on why the First Amendment is so important. But I
am concerned, and you referenced the need for sort of
courage against this cancel culture mob, and unfortunately we don't
see that very often in university administration. They are some
(19:28):
of the most weak need officials right now in this country.
Speaker 1 (19:31):
Well, and it's also hard for students who believe in
free speech or who are conservative on these campuses because
you have the college administrators, you have the teachers, you
have you know, other students. I mean, you're essentially an
odd man out on campus. I'm sure it's brutal.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
It is.
Speaker 4 (19:48):
We litigate more cases on behalf of students than any
other conservative public interest group that I've seen, and there
are some four hundred and fifty victories that we've had,
but they just keep coming because administrative officials will not
abide by the law and so conservative and religious students
have to stand up for their rights, and even when
we win, they will try to change the policy back
(20:12):
or a new method. For example, we've had a couple
of cases this year where they have agreed to enter
no contact orders against students who have articulated conservative or
religious viewpoints, suggesting that there are microaggressions when someone utters
a conservative viewpoint, and we have got to beat that
back and ensure that universities pay a hefty price when
(20:34):
they suppress the speech of students. But students have to
have more courage too, and it's hard to sue your school.
Speaker 1 (20:39):
Well, I mean, we saw that recently with the affirmative
action case. I can't remember specifically what Harvard said, but
they basically put out a statement saying they're going.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
To skirt around the Supreme Court.
Speaker 3 (20:49):
I'd said, that's what they do.
Speaker 4 (20:51):
And this issue of qualified immunity, which is probably taking
us down a rabbit trail, but there's essentially a concept
in the law that says, you know, the government officials
can't necessarily be held accountable monetarily unless they have violated
a very clear ruling or a very clear law. And
we're trying to establish those very clear rulings and very
(21:13):
clear laws so that it hurts when the government violates
our rights. And that's a principle that I think those
on the left and the right can agree to. That's
actually a part of the second case that I argued
before the Court had to do with if your constitutional
rights are violated, but you can't really put a price
tag on it, Can the government just get off?
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Do they just get a free pass?
Speaker 4 (21:36):
And the Court said no, there are no free passes
to violating constitutional rights.
Speaker 1 (21:40):
Kristen, Is there anything else you want to leave us
with about the First Amendment or free speech in America?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
It's worth standing up for so many times.
Speaker 4 (21:48):
I think we want to stand first of all for
our own right to speech, but we need to understand
that in order to protect our right to be able
to speak and live and think consistent with our beliefs,
we need to stand for the rights of others in
this space. It isn't a rule that goes one way,
but it's worth protecting because we don't want to be
forced to betray our conscience and we don't want to
(22:10):
be forced to say things that we don't believe. It
benefits everyone, and I think The last thing I would
just say is.
Speaker 3 (22:17):
Read the decision.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
I would encourage people to read the three h three
creative decision. The narrative that the Associated Press and others
have put out about, well, it might be a fake case.
Speaker 3 (22:28):
Or it's not a real ruling, or it hurts or discriminates.
It's just not true. And when you read the decision,
you know that Christin, appreciate.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
The work you do, President of Alliance Defending Freedom. Thank
you for what you do, and thank you for winnings.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Well, thank you, it's our priva.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
It was Kristin Wagner with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Appreciate
her taking the time to come on the show. Appreciate
you guys at home for listening. Thank John Cassio, my producer,
for putting the show together as always every Monday and Thursday,
but you can listen throughout the week. Feel free to
drop us a review, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Until next time, take care,
Host
Lisa Boothe
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.