Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

It sounds like we may agree on some points again. The government is on shaky ground when it interferes with private speech due to its content, especially when private religious speech is targeted due to government disagreement with the message conveyed.

 

While the prevention of actual fraud in the marketplace is certainly an important government interest, it is tough to craft a policy that would target actual fraud without covering non-fraudulent religious and/or commercial speech. Some fortunetelling bans have been invalidated for regulating more than just commercial speech and for censoring more than just fraudulent statements.

 

The protection of religious speech applies far beyond “fortunetelling,” however, as pastors should be free to speak prophetically in their churches without fear that someone in attendance will claim that the pastor committed “fraud” in a lawsuit. We have seen recent examples of unwarranted, overzealous, media-driven investigations of so-called “prosperity gospel” churches by members of Congress. In addition, there continues to be talk among some on the Left of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, an antiquated rule that would threaten popular religious and conservative broadcast television and radio programs. These are just a few examples of government regulation of speech run amok that Barry should also oppose.

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus