Julie Mauck is a mother, real estate agent, and parental rights activist, so it should be no surprise that she used her free speech rights to protect children in the community from pornographic material.

But the Georgia mother of four found herself the target of a cancel campaign by an activist who falsely accused her of equating all LGBT people to pedophiles. 

Now, Mauck is fighting back with the help of the Coalition for Liberty, which supports individuals who find themselves the target of cancel culture. The group’s president, Doug Turpin, said there must be consequences when people spread lies that damage someone’s livelihood, which is what Coalition for Liberty aims to accomplish. 

The Moms for Liberty activist had to fight against “false attacks,” according to Turpin, who spoke to the Washington Examiner via phone Thursday. His group is helping fund Mauck’s lawsuit against two LGBT activists and the group Athens Pride for their role in targeting her business. The defendants have until September to respond to the lawsuit, according to a search of the court database.

The targeting came after Mauck said sexualized books, such as Flamer, should be inaccessible to minors in the public libraries. The book “contains alternate sexualities, sexual activities, sexual nudity, profanity, and derogatory terms, violence including self-harm, and controversial religious commentary,” according to the lawsuit, which paraphrases BookLooks.org.

The books, according to Mauck, should be put in a section that requires adult consent. She made this suggestion last July at an Oconee County Public Library meeting, and the board agreed with her.

Because of this, Carmella Bonnano, who leads Athens Pride, began contacting Mauck’s broker and pressured him to drop her. So did someone named Felix Bell, who also uses the name “Fiona.”

Realtors must have a broker in order to conduct business in the state, so Mauck’s broker dropping her essentially froze her out of business for two months until she found another.

Mauck also faced an ethics complaint filed by Bell with the Georgia Association of Realtors based on the false allegation that the mother of four called all LGBT people pedophiles. Both the video of the meeting and half a dozen witnesses debunked this claim. 

Yet, the hearing panel, composed not of attorneys but real estate agents, said Mauck had violated rules against “discrimination in real estate transactions.” 

There was no proof an actual person in the LGBT community had faced discrimination, and an appeals panel overruled the decision.

Turpin said the “head of the initial panel showed up” to the second hearing and “acted like a prosecutor.” This was “highly unusual,” he explained.

“He literally said, ‘The truth does not matter. Feelings matter.’ And then he claimed that pedophiles were a protected class,” Turpin said. “It was astounding.”

The cancel culture campaign is not simply part of activist free speech, Turpin said, because the allegations are false.

“We support free speech,” Turpin said, but “what they don’t have the right to do is to lie about somebody in order to harm them. And that’s what they did.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“If they are trying to destroy someone with a knowingly false accusation in order to defame them, or get them fired from their job, that’s the type of cancel culture that we believe can’t be permitted,” Turpin said.

If the cancel campaigns are to end, he added, there must be consequences.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.

2024-08-05 18:17:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3110854%2Frealtor-mother-four-fights-cancel-campaign-lgbt-activists%2F?w=600&h=450, Julie Mauck is a mother, real estate agent, and parental rights activist, so it should be no surprise that she used her free speech rights to protect children in the community from pornographic material. But the Georgia mother of four found herself the target of a cancel campaign by an activist who falsely accused her of equating all LGBT,

Julie Mauck is a mother, real estate agent, and parental rights activist, so it should be no surprise that she used her free speech rights to protect children in the community from pornographic material.

But the Georgia mother of four found herself the target of a cancel campaign by an activist who falsely accused her of equating all LGBT people to pedophiles. 

Now, Mauck is fighting back with the help of the Coalition for Liberty, which supports individuals who find themselves the target of cancel culture. The group’s president, Doug Turpin, said there must be consequences when people spread lies that damage someone’s livelihood, which is what Coalition for Liberty aims to accomplish. 

The Moms for Liberty activist had to fight against “false attacks,” according to Turpin, who spoke to the Washington Examiner via phone Thursday. His group is helping fund Mauck’s lawsuit against two LGBT activists and the group Athens Pride for their role in targeting her business. The defendants have until September to respond to the lawsuit, according to a search of the court database.

The targeting came after Mauck said sexualized books, such as Flamer, should be inaccessible to minors in the public libraries. The book “contains alternate sexualities, sexual activities, sexual nudity, profanity, and derogatory terms, violence including self-harm, and controversial religious commentary,” according to the lawsuit, which paraphrases BookLooks.org.

The books, according to Mauck, should be put in a section that requires adult consent. She made this suggestion last July at an Oconee County Public Library meeting, and the board agreed with her.

Because of this, Carmella Bonnano, who leads Athens Pride, began contacting Mauck’s broker and pressured him to drop her. So did someone named Felix Bell, who also uses the name “Fiona.”

Realtors must have a broker in order to conduct business in the state, so Mauck’s broker dropping her essentially froze her out of business for two months until she found another.

Mauck also faced an ethics complaint filed by Bell with the Georgia Association of Realtors based on the false allegation that the mother of four called all LGBT people pedophiles. Both the video of the meeting and half a dozen witnesses debunked this claim. 

Yet, the hearing panel, composed not of attorneys but real estate agents, said Mauck had violated rules against “discrimination in real estate transactions.” 

There was no proof an actual person in the LGBT community had faced discrimination, and an appeals panel overruled the decision.

Turpin said the “head of the initial panel showed up” to the second hearing and “acted like a prosecutor.” This was “highly unusual,” he explained.

“He literally said, ‘The truth does not matter. Feelings matter.’ And then he claimed that pedophiles were a protected class,” Turpin said. “It was astounding.”

The cancel culture campaign is not simply part of activist free speech, Turpin said, because the allegations are false.

“We support free speech,” Turpin said, but “what they don’t have the right to do is to lie about somebody in order to harm them. And that’s what they did.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“If they are trying to destroy someone with a knowingly false accusation in order to defame them, or get them fired from their job, that’s the type of cancel culture that we believe can’t be permitted,” Turpin said.

If the cancel campaigns are to end, he added, there must be consequences.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.

, Julie Mauck is a mother, real estate agent, and parental rights activist, so it should be no surprise that she used her free speech rights to protect children in the community from pornographic material. But the Georgia mother of four found herself the target of a cancel campaign by an activist who falsely accused her of equating all LGBT people to pedophiles.  Now, Mauck is fighting back with the help of the Coalition for Liberty, which supports individuals who find themselves the target of cancel culture. The group’s president, Doug Turpin, said there must be consequences when people spread lies that damage someone’s livelihood, which is what Coalition for Liberty aims to accomplish.  The Moms for Liberty activist had to fight against “false attacks,” according to Turpin, who spoke to the Washington Examiner via phone Thursday. His group is helping fund Mauck’s lawsuit against two LGBT activists and the group Athens Pride for their role in targeting her business. The defendants have until September to respond to the lawsuit, according to a search of the court database. The targeting came after Mauck said sexualized books, such as Flamer, should be inaccessible to minors in the public libraries. The book “contains alternate sexualities, sexual activities, sexual nudity, profanity, and derogatory terms, violence including self-harm, and controversial religious commentary,” according to the lawsuit, which paraphrases BookLooks.org. The books, according to Mauck, should be put in a section that requires adult consent. She made this suggestion last July at an Oconee County Public Library meeting, and the board agreed with her. Because of this, Carmella Bonnano, who leads Athens Pride, began contacting Mauck’s broker and pressured him to drop her. So did someone named Felix Bell, who also uses the name “Fiona.” Realtors must have a broker in order to conduct business in the state, so Mauck’s broker dropping her essentially froze her out of business for two months until she found another. Mauck also faced an ethics complaint filed by Bell with the Georgia Association of Realtors based on the false allegation that the mother of four called all LGBT people pedophiles. Both the video of the meeting and half a dozen witnesses debunked this claim.  Yet, the hearing panel, composed not of attorneys but real estate agents, said Mauck had violated rules against “discrimination in real estate transactions.”  There was no proof an actual person in the LGBT community had faced discrimination, and an appeals panel overruled the decision. Turpin said the “head of the initial panel showed up” to the second hearing and “acted like a prosecutor.” This was “highly unusual,” he explained. “He literally said, ‘The truth does not matter. Feelings matter.’ And then he claimed that pedophiles were a protected class,” Turpin said. “It was astounding.” The cancel culture campaign is not simply part of activist free speech, Turpin said, because the allegations are false. “We support free speech,” Turpin said, but “what they don’t have the right to do is to lie about somebody in order to harm them. And that’s what they did.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER “If they are trying to destroy someone with a knowingly false accusation in order to defame them, or get them fired from their job, that’s the type of cancel culture that we believe can’t be permitted,” Turpin said. If the cancel campaigns are to end, he added, there must be consequences. Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/AP23265427530798.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Matt Lamb,

The University of Louisville’s latest arguments in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals do not inspire confidence that its medical school is a place for open debate on important topics. The school recently argued that it should be able to fire Dr. Allan Josephson for his criticism, on his own time, of treatments for young people who struggle with gender dysphoria.

Josephson “turned around” the university’s “struggling Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology” after joining the school in the early 2000s, according to his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom. Despite this success and other accolades, including perfect scores on his performance reviews, Josephson found himself forced out after comments he made at a Heritage Foundation panel in 2017. 

These included raising concerns about the comorbidity of other mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, with transgender identification. He also said parents should “affirm” and “love” a child who identifies as the opposite sex, but not in the way activists say to do it.

“You don’t affirm a bad idea,” Josephson said.

The sanctions also followed further discovery by his peers that he testified in court as an expert on gender dysphoria. 

This fits into other concerning stories about the ostracism of academics who question treatments for children who claim to be the opposite sex, despite the fact that sex is immutable and there are only two genders.

Though he was the division chief, the university demoted Josephson “to the role of a junior faculty member” before eventually getting rid of him in 2019, according to ADF. On Tuesday, an attorney for the university argued in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that its officials have “qualified immunity” for actions related to their decision not to renew Josephson’s contract.

The university argued that Josephson’s personal comments at the Heritage Foundation related to his professional role at the medical school and thus overcame a First Amendment claim. 

He was not separately compensated for this speech and did not do it at the direction of the school, the attorney said after being questioned by Judge Richard Griffin. In fact, the Heritage Foundation paid for him to speak there, as Josephson’s attorney would say shortly thereafter.

The views were “expressed on his own time,” ADF attorney Travis Barham argued in front of the court. He said the university was arguing for a “radical” concept that professors lose their First Amendment rights “off campus.” Per case law, public employees have more First Amendment rights when not on the job, according to Barham.

“It’s clear that he was speaking as a citizen … on a matter of public concern, the issue of gender identity,” Barham argued.

Yet medical school officials “took away [Josephson’s] teaching duties,” “banned him from faculty meetings,” and “removed psychology trainees from his tutelage.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Those punishments, the oral arguments, and a pending lawsuit should be a warning message to prospective faculty of the University of Louisville School of Medicine.

The school has made clear it does not respect the rights of faculty to voice their views on issues, even those that are directly related to their jobs as professors. Josephson, as a psychiatrist and medical school professor, should have the right to criticize transgender ideology whether he is on or off campus.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix, which recently received a grant from the Heritage Foundation for an unrelated project. He has previously worked with Alliance Defending Freedom on free speech issues at prior jobs.

2024-07-26 17:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3100778%2Funiversity-of-louisville-fire-professors-criticize-gender-ideology%2F?w=600&h=450, The University of Louisville’s latest arguments in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals do not inspire confidence that its medical school is a place for open debate on important topics. The school recently argued that it should be able to fire Dr. Allan Josephson for his criticism, on his own time, of treatments for young people,

The University of Louisville’s latest arguments in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals do not inspire confidence that its medical school is a place for open debate on important topics. The school recently argued that it should be able to fire Dr. Allan Josephson for his criticism, on his own time, of treatments for young people who struggle with gender dysphoria.

Josephson “turned around” the university’s “struggling Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology” after joining the school in the early 2000s, according to his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom. Despite this success and other accolades, including perfect scores on his performance reviews, Josephson found himself forced out after comments he made at a Heritage Foundation panel in 2017. 

These included raising concerns about the comorbidity of other mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, with transgender identification. He also said parents should “affirm” and “love” a child who identifies as the opposite sex, but not in the way activists say to do it.

“You don’t affirm a bad idea,” Josephson said.

The sanctions also followed further discovery by his peers that he testified in court as an expert on gender dysphoria. 

This fits into other concerning stories about the ostracism of academics who question treatments for children who claim to be the opposite sex, despite the fact that sex is immutable and there are only two genders.

Though he was the division chief, the university demoted Josephson “to the role of a junior faculty member” before eventually getting rid of him in 2019, according to ADF. On Tuesday, an attorney for the university argued in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that its officials have “qualified immunity” for actions related to their decision not to renew Josephson’s contract.

The university argued that Josephson’s personal comments at the Heritage Foundation related to his professional role at the medical school and thus overcame a First Amendment claim. 

He was not separately compensated for this speech and did not do it at the direction of the school, the attorney said after being questioned by Judge Richard Griffin. In fact, the Heritage Foundation paid for him to speak there, as Josephson’s attorney would say shortly thereafter.

The views were “expressed on his own time,” ADF attorney Travis Barham argued in front of the court. He said the university was arguing for a “radical” concept that professors lose their First Amendment rights “off campus.” Per case law, public employees have more First Amendment rights when not on the job, according to Barham.

“It’s clear that he was speaking as a citizen … on a matter of public concern, the issue of gender identity,” Barham argued.

Yet medical school officials “took away [Josephson’s] teaching duties,” “banned him from faculty meetings,” and “removed psychology trainees from his tutelage.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Those punishments, the oral arguments, and a pending lawsuit should be a warning message to prospective faculty of the University of Louisville School of Medicine.

The school has made clear it does not respect the rights of faculty to voice their views on issues, even those that are directly related to their jobs as professors. Josephson, as a psychiatrist and medical school professor, should have the right to criticize transgender ideology whether he is on or off campus.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix, which recently received a grant from the Heritage Foundation for an unrelated project. He has previously worked with Alliance Defending Freedom on free speech issues at prior jobs.

, The University of Louisville’s latest arguments in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals do not inspire confidence that its medical school is a place for open debate on important topics. The school recently argued that it should be able to fire Dr. Allan Josephson for his criticism, on his own time, of treatments for young people who struggle with gender dysphoria. Josephson “turned around” the university’s “struggling Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology” after joining the school in the early 2000s, according to his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom. Despite this success and other accolades, including perfect scores on his performance reviews, Josephson found himself forced out after comments he made at a Heritage Foundation panel in 2017.  These included raising concerns about the comorbidity of other mental health problems, such as anxiety and depression, with transgender identification. He also said parents should “affirm” and “love” a child who identifies as the opposite sex, but not in the way activists say to do it. “You don’t affirm a bad idea,” Josephson said. The sanctions also followed further discovery by his peers that he testified in court as an expert on gender dysphoria.  This fits into other concerning stories about the ostracism of academics who question treatments for children who claim to be the opposite sex, despite the fact that sex is immutable and there are only two genders. Though he was the division chief, the university demoted Josephson “to the role of a junior faculty member” before eventually getting rid of him in 2019, according to ADF. On Tuesday, an attorney for the university argued in front of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that its officials have “qualified immunity” for actions related to their decision not to renew Josephson’s contract. The university argued that Josephson’s personal comments at the Heritage Foundation related to his professional role at the medical school and thus overcame a First Amendment claim.  He was not separately compensated for this speech and did not do it at the direction of the school, the attorney said after being questioned by Judge Richard Griffin. In fact, the Heritage Foundation paid for him to speak there, as Josephson’s attorney would say shortly thereafter. The views were “expressed on his own time,” ADF attorney Travis Barham argued in front of the court. He said the university was arguing for a “radical” concept that professors lose their First Amendment rights “off campus.” Per case law, public employees have more First Amendment rights when not on the job, according to Barham. “It’s clear that he was speaking as a citizen … on a matter of public concern, the issue of gender identity,” Barham argued. Yet medical school officials “took away [Josephson’s] teaching duties,” “banned him from faculty meetings,” and “removed psychology trainees from his tutelage.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Those punishments, the oral arguments, and a pending lawsuit should be a warning message to prospective faculty of the University of Louisville School of Medicine. The school has made clear it does not respect the rights of faculty to voice their views on issues, even those that are directly related to their jobs as professors. Josephson, as a psychiatrist and medical school professor, should have the right to criticize transgender ideology whether he is on or off campus. Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix, which recently received  a grant  from the Heritage Foundation for an unrelated project. He has previously worked with Alliance Defending Freedom on free speech issues at prior jobs., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/iStock-1497367968.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Matt Lamb,

Jeff Hunt is an outspoken conservative, but he is battling Colorado State Capitol officials to ensure free speech rights are protected for all his fellow citizens.

The radio host and former executive director of Western Conservative Summit wants to see the Capitol change its unevenly applied rules regarding political apparel worn inside the Senate and House galleries.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent the Colorado House and Senate sergeant-at-arms a legal letter recently, and a lawsuit is up next if an unfavorable response is received. 

The recent letter stems from an incident last year when the Senate sergeant-at-arms ordered Hunt to take off his “Pro-Life U” sweatshirt or leave the gallery. Hunt, at the time, worked for Colorado Christian University, which uses that slogan.  

“I think that the Colorado State Capitol absolutely needs to change its policies in order to respect the constitutional rights of all Coloradans,” Hunt told the Washington Examiner during a phone interview Thursday.

He said he was inside the gallery for “30 seconds” before he was pulled out by the sergeant-at-arms. He told the Washington Examiner he had designed the sweatshirt and was wearing the “prototype.”

Hunt had been to the Capitol often in the past five years as the director of CCU’s Centennial Institute, a conservative think tank. Normally, he wore a shirt and tie, but that day, he wore the sweatshirt without a problem and did not see it as a political message.

“I guess it’s a political statement, but from my perspective, it was more … [about] promot[ing] the university,” Hunt said. 

He said he “wore it a few times” while testifying and in “committee rooms,” but never in the gallery. He has seen other groups throughout the year wearing shirts that would qualify as political, including pro-gun control shirts, he said.

Just weeks prior to the March 2023 incident, “Angels Against Gun Violence” were allowed to sit with their paraphernalia in the gallery, according to FIRE’s letter.

“It took about 5 minutes on Google” to find this example, Hunt told the Washington Examiner.

But he doesn’t want those people silenced. Instead, he wants “to make sure that whether you’re progressive or conservative, you’re able to freely share your political viewpoints without fear of being asked to leave.”

Capitol officials later tried to claim the rule only applies to political messages that relate to legislation being debated by the Senate. That day, the Colorado Senate was debating legislation about pregnancy resource centers, according to FIRE’s account.

If such a rule existed, it would undermine one of the benefits of the First Amendment: To speak out in favor of or against legislation. But that rule does not even exist. According to FIRE, the “post hoc explanation to reporters appears nowhere in the text of the rule on the website, nor is it posted outside the galleries.”

Hunt called this an “out” and “a bit of a stretch.”

You see people there all the time wearing “Moms Demand Action,” “Planned Parenthood,” and, more recently, “pro-Palestine” materials, he said.

There are already rules about disturbances, and the Capitol absolutely should be able to expel individuals who are disrupting the proceedings. Hunt was not doing that, though.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Capitol’s loose understanding of the First Amendment is reflected in its vague “political statements ban,” Hunt told the Washington Examiner.

“It became pretty clear pretty quickly that they have some real problems with regard to free speech issues,” he said.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.