0:00

We all know that free speech is under attack

0:02

in America. We all saw how the government

0:05

intervened heading into the twenty twenty election

0:07

trying to stifle the Hunter Biden story.

0:09

We also saw during COVID how the

0:11

government intervened to try to

0:13

censor dissent on COVID. So

0:16

we're going to talk to a woman who has fought

0:18

for free speech before the Supreme

0:20

Court three cases.

0:21

In fact. Her name is Kristin Wagner.

0:24

She's the CEO and president of Alliance

0:26

Defending Freedom. She just won

0:28

a big case for free speech, a huge

0:31

victory that was just handed down. The

0:33

case is called three zero three Creative

0:36

LLC versus ellenis Lorie

0:38

Smith, who she was the main counsel

0:40

for as a Christian graphic artist and website

0:42

designer who believes in traditional

0:45

marriage. We're going to talk to Kristin about

0:47

that case, free speech in America,

0:49

and why more Americans don't

0:52

support free speech today. We've

0:54

seen sentiments change a little bit, particularly

0:56

among young people, So why is that. Stay

0:58

tuned for Kristin Waggon. Kristen,

1:05

thanks so much for coming on the show. This

1:08

is the first time you're coming on, so I appreciate

1:10

you joining us.

1:11

Thank you for having me.

1:12

What's it like?

1:13

This is the third case you've argued before

1:15

the Supreme Court that we're about to get

1:17

into. Three h three Creative LLC

1:20

Versus eleenis what's it like to argue

1:22

before the Supreme Court?

1:23

It's a great privilege. I

1:26

think that any lawyer.

1:27

That has argued before the Court, regardless

1:30

of their ideological perspectives,

1:33

would have to conceive that those nine

1:35

justices are the best and the brightest.

1:37

And it's sort of like

1:40

a lawyer super bowl.

1:41

You want to be at your peak and you know

1:44

that you'll get great questions and that the justices

1:46

will thoughtfully consider the argument.

1:48

Tell us a little bit about this case, what

1:51

started it? Break it down a little bit for us.

1:53

Sure well. Laurie Smith is a

1:55

creative artist.

1:56

She launched her career

1:58

as a graphic and website designer working

2:01

for of all people or of

2:03

all institutions, the government of Colorado,

2:05

which is who she ended up suing in this case.

2:08

And then as she began

2:11

her career, began to realize that she wanted to be

2:13

able to own her own business and design

2:15

websites that were consistent

2:17

with her beliefs that promoted projects

2:19

and ideas that she felt like

2:21

should be promoted in the public square.

2:24

So she launched three h three Creative and

2:26

that's a website and graphic design

2:29

firm. They create custom websites

2:32

for all kinds of different projects.

2:35

In twenty sixteen, she wanted

2:38

to begin to expand the business into

2:40

custom wedding websites, and

2:43

Laurie had a front row seat to see what

2:45

Colorado's position on that would be, as

2:47

it was aggressively prosecuting

2:50

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake

2:52

Shop during that time, and

2:54

Colorado said that if an artist

2:57

was creating custom speech that

2:59

would promote their face view on marriage

3:01

between a man and a woman, that they must

3:04

also accept and create

3:06

custom messages about weddings

3:08

that they disagreed with and that violated their

3:10

faith. And so Laurie filed

3:13

a case against Colorado, claiming

3:16

arguing that the law was unjust and unconstitutional,

3:19

and that went to the US Supreme Court.

3:20

It seems like a lot.

3:21

Of these cases are coming out of Colorado

3:26

just because there are a bunch of you know, commie liberals

3:28

or what's the detail.

3:31

Well, you know,

3:34

I do think it's unusual the aggressive

3:36

posture that Colorado

3:39

has taken in these cases, not

3:41

just in Laurie's case, but for the

3:43

last twelve years, including.

3:46

In Jack Phillips case.

3:47

Jack is now on his third case involving

3:50

this issue.

3:51

But it wouldn't be true to say it's only

3:53

Colorado.

3:54

A number of left leaning states are misusing

3:57

non discrimination laws and they're using them

3:59

as what weapons to silence and

4:01

punish those who have a different view

4:03

of sexual ethics than those

4:05

in power. So we have cases involving

4:08

photographers and bloggers

4:10

and filmmakers and calligraphers

4:13

and painters, and some of those people even face

4:15

jail time if they don't create

4:18

messages that violate their convictions.

4:20

And what's it like for you know, Lourie

4:22

Smith or Jack Phillips to go through

4:24

this. I mean, obviously they're slandered, they're

4:26

smeared, they're labeled as big as what's

4:29

this been like for them?

4:30

It's horrible, you know.

4:32

Even since the victory at the

4:34

US Supreme Court that we had a few weeks ago, which

4:36

was a broad victory for everyone, Laurie

4:39

has faced all kinds of death threats

4:41

and.

4:42

Just horrible things.

4:44

And I think the media has misrepresented,

4:48

not unintentionally but actually intentionally

4:50

misrepresented what the Court's decision

4:53

was and the facts of Laurie's case.

4:55

Because Laurie serves everyone, She

4:58

designs messages for people from all walks

5:00

of life. She has clients who identifies

5:02

LGBT right now. She always

5:05

makes her decisions about what

5:07

speech to create based on the message

5:09

that she's being asked to speak and

5:11

to create. And that's a distinction

5:13

that's very important in this area of the law.

5:16

It's about the message, not the person.

5:18

Why do you think the media goes to such lengths

5:20

to distore and smear in these particular

5:22

cases.

5:23

In particular, I think there's an effort to

5:25

delegitimize the Supreme Court, and

5:28

there is an effort to ensure

5:30

that anyone who believes marriages between

5:32

a man and a woman, or who ascribes

5:34

to the traditional sexual ethics that are

5:36

articulated in all of the Abrahamic

5:39

face that if they can compare those

5:41

people to bigots

5:43

and suggests that it's not about

5:45

the message and malign them, they'll somehow

5:47

be able to silence and shut down the debate

5:49

on these issues.

5:50

You've been following this for a long

5:53

time.

5:53

Free speech in America

5:55

is it under attack?

5:56

It absolutely is under attack, and

5:59

thankfully the court said in the

6:01

three or three creative decision that no one

6:03

can be forced to say something that they don't believe.

6:06

Laurie didn't just stand for her own rights,

6:08

but the person who identifies

6:10

as LGBT and who's a website designer,

6:13

this protects her rights as well not to

6:15

have to create a message that violates

6:17

her convictions. Or even we can think

6:20

along political ideology lines

6:22

because these laws, some of these laws cover political

6:24

ideology. Had Laurie lost

6:26

her case, a Democrat or a Republican

6:29

could be forced to have to write speeches for

6:31

the opposite party.

6:33

And lastly, I'll just say at ADF,

6:35

we're in international ministry.

6:36

We have about four hundred and fifty team

6:39

members and we're around the globe. We're

6:41

mainly known for our US work, but by

6:43

having a bird's eye view in the world

6:46

as to what's going on, we are the last country

6:48

in the Western world that is resisting

6:51

the kind of government censorship that

6:53

is blanketing Europe and Canada, New

6:55

Zealand and Australia.

6:56

So we have to stand for free speech in this

6:59

moment.

7:00

Think there's been a shift, as you

7:02

noted what do you think that stems

7:04

from.

7:05

You know, I heard a quote the other day.

7:07

I think it was from Archbishop Shappoo, but I

7:09

haven't been able to validate where

7:11

it came from. But it essentially says something to the

7:13

effect of evil preaches tolerance until

7:16

it becomes until it has power,

7:18

and then it turns into coercion or something

7:20

like that. And I really do believe

7:22

that we're seeing right now. Some

7:25

are misguided, but other are intentional

7:27

about it. Those who are in power try to use

7:30

the law as a weapon to silence,

7:33

punish, and censor enemies,

7:36

and in that vein

7:38

I think it's important to realize when you look around

7:40

the world, the first thing that tyrants do is

7:42

shut down the right of free speech because

7:45

it prohibits dissent. And

7:47

that's what this is about right now, is whether

7:50

those in power will be able to use the law

7:53

to silence dissent and to shut

7:55

down debate.

7:56

Do you think any of.

7:56

It aligns with a decline in religion

7:58

in the country.

7:59

Think think that the.

8:02

Effort to coerce people

8:04

to violate their convictions about sexual

8:06

ethics does have something

8:08

to do with the decline of religion. I also

8:11

think that we in

8:13

some quarters have begun to translate

8:15

fundamental rights into any

8:18

right that has to do with a desire that we

8:20

want, and that it's okay

8:22

to silence other people

8:25

that don't agree with us. So

8:27

I think historically religious

8:30

principles have taught us. The Judaeo

8:32

Christian model teaches us that

8:35

free speech is an inalienable right. Religious

8:37

freedom is an innalien right and it extends

8:39

to everyone, not just those who believe, and

8:42

we're seeing an effort to sidestep that right

8:44

now and abandon those tenants.

8:46

We've also seen a media that behaves

8:49

more like state run media

8:51

versus you know, independent the fourth estate,

8:54

which it has been more so you know,

8:56

traditionally, but not as of late. How

8:58

big of an impact do you think that is, how on

9:00

free speech in America?

9:02

I think it's having a tremendous impact. I

9:04

mean, the First Amendment applies to what government

9:06

does, and that's an important principle

9:08

that we need to make clear. This

9:11

case was about what the government could do and how

9:13

they could use the law to censor someone. But

9:15

we're also seeing this sort of cancel

9:17

culture moment where other powerful

9:19

institutions like the media are

9:22

refusing to carry other viewpoints. They're

9:24

refusing to essentially

9:27

engage in what would be more objective truth

9:29

telling.

9:30

I think great example of that.

9:32

Is after the three or three creative decision,

9:34

Nadine Strassen and I, for example, wrote

9:37

an op ed together, and Nadine is the former

9:39

head of the ACLU. We

9:41

could not get a major outlet to publish

9:44

that op ed because they simply

9:46

didn't want to cover a

9:49

former head of the ACLU, A current head

9:51

of the ADF saying this decision is

9:53

good for everyone.

9:54

Well, I can share that pain.

9:56

I was shopping at outbed about not getting

9:58

vaccinated and it was I think the Washington

10:01

Post either responded with good luck

10:03

or stay safe. I think it was stay safe,

10:06

and I've responded you too. I

10:09

don't think they would take any offense for me

10:12

in the future.

10:12

You know how big of a concern do

10:15

you have?

10:15

Obviously the Supreme Court is under

10:18

attack right now. You know the left would

10:20

love to pack the Supreme Court. You

10:22

know the justices have literally had their

10:25

lives threatened, you know, assassination

10:28

attempts against Justice Kavanaugh. How

10:31

soon until we have a packed

10:33

court.

10:33

I hope we never have a pack court. I mean

10:36

with striking about this is you

10:38

know, there have been a few years now lately where

10:41

we've had decisions that have protected

10:44

rights for everyone, free speech for

10:46

everyone, even those who disagree with

10:48

Lorie. That's what the Court stood for in this decision,

10:51

and the progressive left seems to be losing their

10:53

mind over it, and it

10:55

is deeply concerning that they

10:58

are abandoning the principles that have really

11:00

been time tested, that we have honored

11:03

in so many past historical moments.

11:05

As this ree N three creative decision says, it looks

11:07

back eighty years to the height of World War Two,

11:10

where we protected speech that wasn't

11:13

necessarily promoting national

11:15

security or promoting America,

11:18

and we protected that. We've protected so

11:20

much speech over the years that we've

11:22

disagreed with because we know that we

11:25

put up with speech we might consider

11:27

offensive in order to explore and pursue

11:29

truth, but also to curb government authority.

11:31

And if it's a choice between freedom and giving

11:34

the government the power, I'm choosing freedom

11:36

every time throughout history.

11:38

And look, when authoritarians take

11:40

over, communists take over, and one

11:42

of the first things they do is they controlled

11:44

the media. They control the flow of information, and they

11:46

also control what people can say.

11:48

Absolutely.

11:49

There's a quote from Frederick Douglass and

11:52

that's during the abolitionist movement way

11:54

back when, and he's warning even then

11:57

that you know, free speech is so essential

11:59

to government and that it's the first

12:01

thing that tyrants takeaway quick commercial

12:04

break.

12:04

More with Kristen on the other side, I

12:09

worry since COVID there was such

12:11

an effort to shut people down, to

12:13

censor, whether it was you know, these

12:16

big tech companies, but also the government

12:18

collaborating and working with

12:21

big tech to stifle voices. Is

12:23

stifful opposition or people you

12:25

know, challenging the accepted narrative,

12:28

or even with the Hunter Biden story, you know,

12:30

talk a little bit about that.

12:31

Well, we raised it earlier in the sense

12:33

of, you know, we have the first Amendment

12:35

that stops the government from censoring

12:38

speech, and that's what the three h three creative Decision

12:40

was about. But we also have other institutions

12:42

that seem more than willing to

12:45

misrepresent what's happening in the world

12:47

to fit a particular narrative, and instead

12:50

of reporting on the news, there's an ideological

12:53

purpose that they have to being and

12:55

I think that's harmful. We can see even

12:57

during COVID, some of the narrative

12:59

that shod and that now many of us

13:01

believe wasn't actually true, and

13:04

the harm that that causes. We know that

13:06

when we have free speech and we can enter

13:08

into public discourse, that's an opportunity

13:11

to test ideas, to debate ideas,

13:13

and to expose lives, and we all benefit

13:15

from having more information. So

13:18

it does great harm, regardless of what our views

13:20

are on COVID or vaccinations, when

13:23

we have that information limited,

13:25

the truth limited, even if we think it's you

13:28

know, we don't necessarily agree with it.

13:31

That gives us less information on which

13:33

to make our decisions, and that's harmful for all

13:35

of us.

13:35

How do you change perspectives?

13:38

How do you change opinions on this? Particularly

13:40

when you look at young people, they

13:43

more and more believe in censorship.

13:45

I think it comes down to what

13:47

we're teaching in our schools and more

13:49

than anything, what we're teaching at our kitchen

13:51

tables with our kids. You know,

13:53

parents have abdicated their

13:56

responsibility, I think, to teach

13:59

their children these fundamental principles

14:01

that have served humanity so well

14:03

and served this nation so well,

14:05

about why speech matters, about

14:07

why truth exists, and

14:10

that the First Amendment is a golden

14:12

rule that we have to protect the freedom

14:14

of others in order to have freedom

14:16

ourselves, and that lesson seems

14:18

to have been lost in recent

14:20

years, but I don't think it's too late. I mean, at

14:22

ADF, we had the privilege

14:24

of training the next generation of law

14:27

students, and I see

14:29

the passion that they have on these issues, and

14:31

my hope is that it's turning around, and we're also working

14:33

to ensure that parents continue to have the right to

14:35

be able to teach their children consistent

14:38

with their faith.

14:38

What led you to work for ADF,

14:41

Well.

14:41

It actually I was in private practice

14:43

for about sixteen years in Seattle,

14:46

and it was two

14:48

cases that I think for me as a

14:50

person of faith, that I believe God used in my

14:52

life to just get

14:54

me to take that jump into the

14:57

nonprofit world and do this work full time.

15:00

Case was called Stormans and it involved.

15:01

A fourth generation family

15:03

owned business that was a pharmacy and the state

15:06

of Washington was trying to force

15:08

that pharmacy to dispense abortifacient

15:10

drugs, even though the pharmacy was willing

15:13

to refer patients to some

15:15

thirty pharmacies that were within five miles

15:18

that carried these drugs. And

15:20

then it was also the Arlen's Flowers

15:23

case, which involved the Washington florist

15:25

who was designing all kinds

15:28

of arrangements for our customer who identified

15:30

as gay, but when she declined to design

15:32

custom arrangements for his wedding,

15:35

the Attorney General of Washington didn't

15:37

just sue Barnell's business,

15:39

which she'd had for forty years, but sued

15:42

her personally, putting her personal.

15:44

Assets at risk.

15:45

And I thought at that point I

15:48

wanted to jump in full time because it was so apparent

15:50

to me that people of faith were

15:52

being vilified for the

15:55

beliefs that most of Western civilization

15:57

has had since the dawn of time.

15:59

Think social media plays a role

16:02

in some of this new age vilification

16:04

in the sense of it really creates sort of

16:06

this mob mentality. And

16:09

also I think people are

16:11

afraid to

16:13

not go along with a program. You know, everyone's

16:15

wired to just want to go along with

16:17

the mob, and the mob isn't necessarily

16:19

a majority, they're just the loudest voices on

16:22

social media or what have you.

16:23

Absolutely, I was I

16:27

think the first real experience

16:29

I had with the mob was at Yale Law School

16:31

a couple of years ago, and I was there

16:33

to speak on free speech with

16:36

the leader of the American Humanist

16:39

Association, and we were there to model stability

16:41

to the law students, to model that

16:43

we can disagree on a lot of different issues,

16:46

but that we stand together on how important

16:48

speech is. And a student mob

16:50

of about one hundred and twenty engaged

16:53

in some really horrific

16:55

conduct that we were eventually escorted

16:57

out by police to a police car. And

17:00

experiencing that in that moment, I can totally

17:02

understand how people

17:05

can be afraid when we're resulting to

17:07

threats of physical violence, and even in social

17:09

media when your name.

17:11

Is drug through the mud, as

17:13

has happened to.

17:13

Laurie Smith and frankly to her lawyers

17:16

in the last two weeks, where just outright

17:18

lies have been told about us,

17:21

and to not have the ability

17:23

to get word out on what the truth

17:25

is because either no one will print it

17:29

or the AP runs with the story that's just

17:31

factually incorrect.

17:32

What do you think law schools are teaching

17:35

now about the First Amendment?

17:41

I have no idea I

17:43

shouldn't say that in that like to make

17:46

a coherent theory out of it is

17:48

just difficult. I can tell you what

17:50

I see them modeling, which is

17:52

they don't model that golden rule. They don't

17:54

model the fact that when

17:57

we are exposed to ideas that

17:59

we dislike, it can actually make

18:01

us better.

18:02

It can make us sharper, it can help us understand

18:04

truth more.

18:05

And so, especially in the law schools, we're

18:07

seeing students that are simply unable

18:09

to engage in debate, and

18:12

they can't debate, which makes me wonder,

18:14

how can you have a justice system that works

18:17

If you can't tolerate someone that

18:19

you disagree with and you can't point out why

18:21

they're wrong, all you can do is physically

18:24

threaten them, shot them down, and

18:26

call them names.

18:27

Well, I worry that we have law

18:29

schools across America that are

18:31

pumping out future lawyers, future

18:33

Supreme Court justices who don't believe in the

18:35

Constitution and the rule of law or

18:39

anything that holds this country

18:41

together.

18:42

Still, it is concerning, and my only

18:44

hope is that you know, out of the Yale Law School,

18:46

there are a couple of other incidents right in that same

18:49

time period with other conservative speakers

18:51

on law school campuses and the schools had to

18:53

start to respond and defend themselves, and federal

18:55

judges starting putting pressure on those

18:57

schools to say, you're not teaching

19:00

these students what they need to be zealous

19:02

advocates and to meaningfully participate

19:05

in the judicial system.

19:06

So I hope that that.

19:07

Pressure continues and that

19:10

they again return to first

19:12

principles on why the First Amendment

19:14

is so important. But I am concerned,

19:16

and you referenced the need for sort

19:19

of courage against this cancel culture

19:21

mob, and unfortunately we don't

19:23

see that very often in university

19:26

administration. They are some of

19:28

the most weak need officials right

19:30

now in this country.

19:31

Well, and it's also hard for students

19:34

who believe in free speech or who

19:36

are conservative on these campuses because

19:38

you have the college administrators, you have

19:40

the teachers, you have you know, other

19:43

students. I mean, you're essentially an odd

19:45

man out on campus. I'm sure

19:47

it's brutal.

19:48

It is.

19:48

We litigate more cases on behalf of students

19:50

than any other conservative

19:52

public interest group that I've seen, and

19:55

there are some four hundred and fifty victories

19:58

that we've had, but they just keep coming because

20:00

administrative officials will not abide

20:02

by the law and so conservative and

20:05

religious students have to stand up for their rights,

20:07

and even when we win, they

20:09

will try to change the policy back or

20:12

a new method. For example, we've

20:14

had a couple of cases this year where they

20:16

have agreed to enter no contact orders

20:19

against students who have articulated conservative

20:21

or religious viewpoints, suggesting

20:23

that there are microaggressions when

20:26

someone utters a conservative viewpoint,

20:28

and we have got to beat that back and

20:31

ensure that universities pay a hefty

20:33

price when they suppress the speech of students.

20:36

But students have to have more courage too, and

20:38

it's hard to sue your school.

20:39

Well, I mean, we saw that recently with the affirmative

20:42

action case. I can't remember specifically

20:44

what Harvard said, but they basically put out a statement

20:46

saying they're going.

20:47

To skirt around the Supreme Court.

20:49

I'd said, that's what they do.

20:51

And this issue of qualified immunity,

20:53

which is probably taking us down a rabbit

20:56

trail, but there's essentially a concept in the

20:58

law that says, you know, the government officials

21:00

can't necessarily be held accountable

21:02

monetarily unless they have violated

21:06

a very clear ruling or a very clear

21:08

law. And we're

21:10

trying to establish those very clear rulings

21:13

and very clear laws so that it hurts

21:15

when the government violates our rights.

21:18

And that's a principle that I think those on the

21:20

left and the right can agree to. That's

21:22

actually a part of the second

21:25

case that I argued before the Court had

21:27

to do with if your constitutional

21:29

rights are violated, but you can't really

21:31

put a price tag on it, Can the government

21:34

just get off?

21:35

Do they just get a free pass?

21:36

And the Court said no, there are no free passes

21:38

to violating constitutional rights.

21:40

Kristen, Is there anything else you want to leave us with about

21:43

the First Amendment or free speech in America?

21:45

It's worth standing up for so many

21:47

times.

21:48

I think we want to stand

21:50

first of all for our own right to speech,

21:52

but we need to understand that in order to protect

21:55

our right to be able to speak and live

21:57

and think consistent with our beliefs, we

22:00

need to stand for the rights of others in this space.

22:02

It isn't a rule that goes one way,

22:05

but it's worth protecting because we don't want

22:07

to be forced to betray our conscience and

22:09

we don't want to be forced to say

22:11

things that we don't believe. It benefits

22:14

everyone, and I think The last thing I would just say

22:16

is.

22:17

Read the decision.

22:18

I would encourage people to read the

22:20

three h three creative decision. The

22:23

narrative that the Associated Press

22:25

and others have put out about, well, it might

22:27

be a fake case.

22:28

Or it's not a real ruling, or it hurts

22:30

or discriminates. It's just not true.

22:33

And when you read the decision, you know that Christin,

22:35

appreciate.

22:36

The work you do, President of Alliance

22:38

Defending Freedom. Thank you for what you do,

22:40

and thank you for winnings.

22:44

Well, thank you, it's our priva.

22:50

It was Kristin Wagner with

22:53

the Alliance Defending Freedom.

22:55

Appreciate her taking the time to come on the show.

22:57

Appreciate you guys at home for listening. Thank

23:00

John Cassio, my producer, for putting the show

23:02

together as always every Monday and Thursday,

23:04

but you can listen throughout the week. Feel free to drop

23:06

us a review, give us a rating on Apple Podcasts.

23:09

Until next time, take care,