Connect with us

Colorado

What Brazil and Colorado Have in Common in Restricting Liberty

Published

on

What Brazil and Colorado Have in Common in Restricting Liberty


The legendary rocker Joe Walsh once sang, “The Rocky Mountain way is better than the way we had.” But in Colorado, unfortunately, the Rocky Mountain way now more closely resembles censorship in Brazil than liberty in America.

More than 100 international free speech advocates, including five former U.S. attorneys general, joined an open letter to the Brazilian Congress last month condemning Brazil’s severe censorship, which includes suspension of the social media platform X.

While some may look on with mawkish curiosity at foreign intrigue they deem irrelevant to life in America, others may view Brazil’s authoritarian impulse through a lens of gratitude that it couldn’t happen here. Both are wrong.

One need only look to the state of Colorado to find an American example of governing authorities who seek to silence speech with which they disagree and compel reiteration of their preferred message.

Advertisement

More on that a bit later.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who owns X, has been engaged in a dispute with Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes that stems from de Moraes’ demands that Musk’s social media platform censor messages he disfavors.

On Aug. 30, de Moraes officially suspended X nationwide in Brazil. He also froze the bank accounts of Starlink, a subsidiary of Musk’s aerospace company SpaceX that provides internet access via satellite.

In his order, de Moraes said X presents a “real danger” of “negatively influencing the electorate in 2024, with massive misinformation, with the aim of unbalancing the electoral result, based on hate campaigns in the digital age, to favor extremist populist groups.”

Besides the former attorneys general, signers of the Sept. 12 letter to Brazilian lawmakers include three members of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords, The Daily Wire’s Megan Basham, bestselling author Rod Dreher, podcaster Tammy Peterson, Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon, X “Spaces” host Mario Nawfal, former Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and leading academics such as Princeton University’s Robert P. George.

Advertisement

Sifting through de Moraes’ parade of red herrings reveals that he and others in power in Brazil fear that allowing access to certain speech on X might lead to an electoral result they wouldn’t like.

As international pressure builds against Brazil’s scurrilous attacks on Musk, X, and the fundamental human right to free speech, many Americans are awakening to the rising global tide of censorship at home.

Now, back to Colorado, where current state law invades the sanctity of the counselor-patient relationship. For patients who desire to live according to their true identity as image-bearers of God, created biologically male or female, the state has declared that any message other than so-called gender-affirming care will put a mental health care professional’s license at risk.

Colorado’s “pro-choice” legislators, who frequently pontificate that the issue of abortion should be left to women and their doctors, also banned doctors from offering women progesterone to counter the effects of the abortion pill.

Thankfully, legal challenges to this Colorado law are underway, but the chilling message from the Legislature is clear: The only state-approved choice once an abortion pill is taken is the one that results in the death of an unborn child. And that’s the only choice about which women can be trusted with information.

Advertisement

Government as gatekeeper to information in Colorado isn’t limited to the state. Local school officials decided that parents didn’t need to know their daughter would be required to share a room on an overnight field trip with a male who identified as female. Apparently, the parents couldn’t be trusted to make the “right” decision for their child. Much better to leave it to the “experts,” of course.

Colorado is also home to Lorie Smith and Jack Phillips.

Smith, who witnessed the now decadelong persecution of Phillips, a Christian baker and self-described cake artist, at the hands of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Smith took that body to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she won the most significant victory for free speech in many years.

Smith, a graphic artist, won for herself and other artists across the nation the Supreme Court’s recognition that coerced speech and censorship are two sides of the same unconstitutional coin. Phillips now waits to see if the Colorado Supreme Court will affirm this same principle for him.

At the heart of the matter in Brazil and Colorado is the widening gulf between the governing and the governed. It is a tempestuous sea of mistrust.

Advertisement

Government officials assume the role of arbiters of truth and the authority to decide what information the masses should have at their disposal. It is a story that has played out on the world stage many times and one that rarely has ended well for the common man or freedom.

America, owing to its extraordinary constitutional protections for the God-given rights of the individual, has been an exception to the general rule of history for nearly two and half centuries.

As Walsh would put it, “Life’s been good.” To remain so requires vigilance in defense of liberty at home as exemplary leadership for the world.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

Advertisement





Source link

Colorado

Judges allow Colorado’s “J6 Praying Grandma,” other Capitol riot defendants to return to DC for Trump’s inauguration

Published

on

Judges allow Colorado’s “J6 Praying Grandma,” other Capitol riot defendants to return to DC for Trump’s inauguration


WASHINGTON — Thousands of Donald Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol after he lost the 2020 presidential election. Four years later, some of them — including Colorado’s self-described “J6 Praying Grandma” — are allowed to return to the nation’s capital so they can celebrate Trump’s return to the White House.

At least 20 defendants charged with or convicted of joining the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol have asked federal judges for permission to attend President-elect Trump’s second inauguration Monday in Washington, D.C., according to an Associated Press review of court records.

The majority can go. Several others cannot.

In most cases, Justice Department prosecutors have argued that Capitol riot defendants shouldn’t be able to return to the scene of their crimes while they’re under the court’s supervision.

Advertisement

“What’s past is prologue, and the defendants could easily find themselves in another situation where they engage in mob violence,” a prosecutor wrote in opposing a New York couple’s travel request.

At least 11 defendants have received the court’s permission to attend the inauguration, a day when Trump may issue mass pardons to Capitol rioters. Judges have denied requests made by at least eight others. One request was pending on Saturday.

Many other convicted Capitol rioters may be free to attend if they have completed their sentences. Typically, those who remain under the court’s supervision after an arrest, a probation sentence or release from prison must get a judge’s approval to travel outside their home district.

Among those who can attend is Deborah Lynn Lee, a Pennsylvania woman accused of posting social media messages calling for the execution of her political opponents in the days leading up to the riot. Lee was charged in August 2021, was convicted of four misdemeanors after a trial in October and is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 27.

Justice Department prosecutor Carlos Valdivia argued that Lee’s return to Washington would endanger Capitol police officers and “create an absurd situation.”

Advertisement

“Lee’s presence in D.C. was restricted for years to keep the community safe, but in a few days, she would be allowed to return to attend a ceremony that demands heightened security,” Valdivia wrote.

Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui approved Lee’s request, noting that she isn’t accused of engaging in violence and has complied with her release conditions. The magistrate said Lee “is coming to celebrate, not demonstrate” this time.

“While the Court is tasked with predicting the future, this is not ‘Minority Report.’ There has to be credible evidence of future danger to justify related release conditions,” Faruqui wrote.

District Judge John Bates agreed to let a New York couple, Carol Moore and Kevin Moore, attend the inauguration while awaiting a trial in April. Prosecutors argued that police officers could be “retraumatized” by the Moores’ presence, but Bates said it was unlikely that any officers at the inauguration would recognize them.

“First, past is not prologue here,” the judge wrote. “The nature of the inauguration is wholly different from the last event the Moores attended that involved the transition of power. Put simply, the inauguration will involve a crowd largely supporting the peaceful transition of power, not opposing it.”

Advertisement

The couple’s attorney said the Moores plan to join others in displaying signs reading “Day One” — an appeal for Trump to make good on a campaign promise to pardon Capitol rioters on his first day back in office. Trump repeatedly has referred to Jan. 6 defendants as “hostages” and “patriots.”

The list of Jan. 6 riot defendants allowed to be in Washington on Monday also includes a New Jersey man who reported himself to the FBI, a New Hampshire woman who must serve a four-month prison sentence and a New Jersey man accused of using a bullhorn to encourage other rioters.

Prosecutors didn’t object to allowing Colorado bed-and-breakfast operator Rebecca Lavrenz — who calls herself the “J6 Praying Grandma” — to attend the inauguration while she is on probation. Lavrenz said her daughter is serving as the deputy director of Monday’s swearing-in ceremony after working on Trump’s campaign last year.

Among those barred from attending the inauguration are Jared Miller, a Virginia man charged with assaulting police. Miller’s attorney, Stephen Brennwald, said Monday’s inauguration presents a “completely different scenario” than the 2021 riot. The lawyer also argued that his client’s conduct that day is irrelevant to his travel request.

“No longer will the participants and observers be in the District out of anger, ready to fight to try to wrest back the power they felt had been unjustly taken from them. Rather, they will be cheering the person they support, and law enforcement will not be in an antagonistic position to those attending the event,” Brennwald wrote.

Advertisement

District Judge Rudolph Contreras denied Miller’s request, pointing to his assault charges.

Russell Taylor, a California man who had a knife and a hatchet in his possession when he helped other rioters overrun a police line outside the Capitol, said he was invited to attend the inauguration by former U.S. Rep. Chris Stewart, a six-term Utah Republican who resigned in 2023.

District Judge Royce Lamberth, who sentenced Taylor to six months of home detention, said it wouldn’t be appropriate to allow somebody who tried to thwart the last presidential inauguration to attend “such a hallowed event.”

“To attend the Presidential Inauguration, which celebrates and honors the peaceful transfer of power, is an immense privilege,” Lamberth wrote.

Judges also rejected the travel requests made by a North Carolina man who participated in the first act of violence against Capitol police on Jan. 6, a Mississippi man charged with assaulting officers with a flagpole and a Maine man accused of attacking police with bear spray.

Advertisement

Stay up-to-date with Colorado Politics by signing up for our weekly newsletter, The Spot.

Originally Published:



Source link

Continue Reading

Colorado

Another blast of snow as our Cold Wave rolls on

Published

on

Another blast of snow as our Cold Wave rolls on


Another blast of snow as our Cold Wave rolls on – CBS Colorado

Watch CBS News


Watch Dave Aguilera’s Forecast

Advertisement

Be the first to know

Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.




Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Colorado

Second wolf release confirmed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Published

on

Second wolf release confirmed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife


On Sunday, Colorado Parks and Wildlife confirmed the release of 15 new wolves from British Columbia in Colorado.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife release 15 new wolves

Colorado Parks and Wildlife

Advertisement


Officials said the department completed a capture and release Saturday for the second Gray Wolf reintroduction season as part of the Colorado Gray Wolf Restoration and Management Plan. Five wolves from the original Copper Creek Pack were also released Saturday. The department said all of the wolves were released in Eagle and Pitkin Counties.

cpw-new-wolves-10.jpg
Colorado Parks and Wildlife release 15 new wolves

Colorado Parks and Wildlife


The release is part of CPW’s efforts to establish a permanent, self-sustaining Gray Wolf population in the state. Coloradans voted for the wolf reintroduction measure back in 2020.

This release is the second of three to five release seasons of the wolves. CPW officials said there are no further releases planned for the 2024-2025 season.

Advertisement
cpw-new-wolves.jpg
Colorado Parks and Wildlife release 15 new wolves

Colorado Parks and Wildlife


Two of the ten wolves released in 2023 were illegally shot. Officials warned that the Gray Wolf population in Colorado is protected by the federal Endangered Species Act and state law. Penalties for illegal take can include fines up to $100,000, jail time, and loss of hunting privileges.

The release of Gray Wolves in Colorado has been controversial, with ranchers pushing for a stop to further releases. Colorado GOP members of Congress released a letter in January calling for an end to wolf reintroduction.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending