In the 1946 movies” target=”_blank”>movie< testified in Congresfbs to assure members that he does not believe that parents protesting at school board meetings are domestic terrorists.
GARLAND GRILLED ON SCHOOL BOARD MEMO, HUNTER BIDEN, JAN. 6 AT HOUSE JUDICIARY HEARING
The Attorney General insists there was nothing to be worried about because thetopicswould simply be monitoring what these parents say or do at school meetings. Promises of such “unobtrusive” investigations or operations ignore the obvious: any national enforcement or monitoring effort is, by definition, obtrusive—particularly when it comes to free speech.
Garland’s testimony came after thejustice-department” target=”_blank”> Justice Department<
However, those answers only begged the question: why has the Justice Department pledged this broad effort to monitor and respond to threats at these meetings? If these are not matters of domestic terrorism, why is the Justice Department implementing this effort? The school board association letter does not cite any pattern of criminal threats nor interstate, federal profile.
Clearly, some threats using interstate communications or interstate conduct can satisfy federal jurisdiction, but such local threats are rarely matters of federal enforcement. Indeed, I raised the same concerns when the Justice Department took over rioting cases in Wisconsin, Washington, and other states.
Video
When asked about alleged sexual misconduct in Loudoun County, Virginia school bathrooms involving student-on-student misconduct, Garland insisted that such violence sounds like a “local case” and the Justice Department would not be involved. Yet, the Justice Department just announced it would get involved with any such threats or violence in school board meetings.
These meetings involve core political speech on issues that are deeply dividing the country. If the Justice Department is going to launch a national effort to address possible crimes in such meetings, it has a heightened duty to explain the basis for an effort based on federal criminal conduct.
Any national enforcement or monitoring effort is, by definition, obtrusive
State and local laws offer ample means to address criminal threats or violence. Only a handful of such cases have been cited—largely cases of unruly or disruptive conduct in the meetings. While Attorney General Garland pledges fidelity to the First Amendment, there is a fair concern over the impact of his memo on such free speech activities.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
First Amendment cases are often more concerned with the “chilling effects” on free speech as opposed to direct government action. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring the reporting of charity donors. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the Court: “When it comes to the freedom of association, the protections of the First Amendment are triggered not only by actual restrictions on an individual’s ability to join with others to further shared goals. The risk of a chilling effect on association is enough.”
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Telling parents that the Justice Department is watching them at school board meetings creates an obvious chilling effect on speech. It is like a police car following you on the highway for miles just to see if you violate any law. It has an impact on how you act. Indeed, the purpose of the National School board letter seemed designed to have that effect.
The Justice Department then amplified that effect by quickly announcing it would carry out the national effort and released a press statement referring to various departments being brought into the fight, including the National Security Division. While Attorney General Garland may pledge to be as “unobtrusive as possible,” it would be quite a “novelty” to succeed.
