The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 5, 2023 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. In the News Hartford Courant: Connecticut Supreme Court rulings bolster First Amendment protections. Here’s how. By Edmund H. Mahony .....The Connecticut Supreme Court has bolstered First Amendment protections with three decisions that guarantee the right of speedy appeals to people who are targets of arguably frivolous lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech and association rights. The 4-3 high court rulings this week come in cases that turn on the state’s 2018 anti-SLAPP law... The question before the high court, in the little noticed decisions released late Tuesday, was whether rulings against defendants pursuing special motions to dismiss can be taken immediately or must be delayed, sometimes for years, until the conclusion of litigation. In all three cases, lower courts said the appeals had to be delayed. The high court’s majority...reversed the lower courts, saying that defendants who lose a special motion to dismiss have a right to an immediate, or interlocutory appeal Justices Gregory T. D’Auria, Steven D. Ecker and Joan K. Alexander dissented, saying there is no right to an immediate appeal under state law... Connecticut is one of 32 states with anti-SLAPP laws and, with this week’s high court decisions, joins 16 states allowing immediate appeals of special motions to dismiss, according to David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech in Washington. “These are important decisions,” Keating said, “If you have to go to trial over an erroneous decision it can be an enormous ordeal.” Supreme Court Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Justice Thomas Long Ago Explained His Perspective On Disclosure Laws By Josh Blackman .....I think we can draw a general sense of how Justice Thomas approaches ethics rules: Justice Thomas discloses what he is required to disclose, but declines to disclose optional information that would allow critics to attack him, his family, and his friends. Thomas's apparent goal is not to shield any actual or apparent conflicts of interest. Despite the media's best efforts, there have been no reports that Crow transacted actual business before the Supreme Court. His goal seems to be to protect his privacy from critics that have been trying to destroy him for more three decades. Consider Justice Thomas's concurrences from Citizens United and Doe v. Reed in this light. He intrinsically views disclosure laws as difficult to justify–whatever benefit disclosure provides are vastly outweighed by the intrusion into people's private spheres. In both cases, Thomas focused on the attempts to expose those who supported Prop 8 (the term "dox" did not exist at the time). In Thomas's view, disclosure enables retaliation for constitutionally-protected activity. He wrote in Citizens United: The Courts New York Times: Legal Moves in Trump Case Reveal Challenges of Prosecuting a President By Jonah E. Bromwich, Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum .....A month after the Manhattan district attorney’s office unveiled criminal charges against Donald J. Trump, the complexities of prosecuting a former president and current contender for the White House are becoming increasingly clear. On Thursday alone, a flurry of activity at what was supposed to be an ordinary court hearing illustrated that reality. The state court judge overseeing the case tentatively scheduled the trial for early next year, in the thick of the presidential primary calendar. The judge also acknowledged Mr. Trump’s role as a presidential candidate who has a right to defend himself — but granted a request from prosecutors to restrict Mr. Trump’s public comments about the evidence against him. And the former president’s lawyers announced that they would try to move the case to federal court — arguing that as a former federal officeholder, it was Mr. Trump’s right to be tried there. San Francisco Chronicle: Ninth Circuit sides with Elizabeth Warren in dispute with RFK Jr. over anti-vax book By Bob Egelko .....A federal appeals court refused Thursday to order Sen. Elizabeth Warren to withdraw a letter that criticized online giant Amazon for recommending a book by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other vaccine deniers that accuses the “global elite” of using the COVID-19 pandemic to seize “unprecedented power.” Kennedy and his coauthors and publisher accused Warren, D-Mass., of violating their freedom of speech by trying to coerce Amazon into removing computer settings that directed customers to their book. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the senator’s message was one of persuasion, not coercion, and upheld a judge’s denial of an injunction that would require Warren to retract the letter. Congress U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley: Senators Reintroduce Foreign Lobbying Disclosure Reform .....A bipartisan group of senators is today reintroducing legislative reforms that will shine a light on efforts by foreign interests to influence American policy and public opinion. The Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act adds teeth to existing law aimed at ensuring public awareness of lobbying campaigns pushed by foreign powers. The bill is sponsored by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). “If lobbyists or public relations firms are peddling policy preferences at the behest of foreign powers, we ought to know about it. Unfortunately, we’ve seen uneven application of laws designed to shine a light on foreign lobbying. This bill gives the Justice Department new tools to detect and deter secret foreign lobbying and ensures policymakers and the American public know when influence campaigns are being pushed by foreign interests. The bill is the product of years of negotiations and congressional oversight, and it’s time we get it on the books,” Grassley said. FEC Federal Election Commission: FEC approves revised audit procedures, advisory opinion and Audit Division recommendation memorandum .....At its open meeting today, the Federal Election Commission approved revised audit procedures, an advisory opinion, and an Audit Division recommendation memorandum. Revised Audit Procedures. The Commission approved four documents that set forth a new audit process for political committees that do not receive public funds and revise other procedures to conform with the proposed audit procedure. The goal of the new audit process is to balance efficiency, procedural protections for audited committees, orderly development of the law, transparency, and encouraging voluntary compliance with the Act. The Commission received one comment on the audit documents. Commissioner James E. “Trey” Trainor, III issued Comments. Candidates and Campaigns Politico (Influence): Ad makers seek to nip ‘deep fake’ campaign ads in the bud By Caitlin Oprysko .....On Wednesday, the American Association of Political Consultants announced that its board of directors had voted unanimously to formally denounce the practice at the association’s annual conference last month... The association isn’t opposed to the use of generative AI altogether, Huynh said. AAPC’s conference last month in Southern California featured panels on the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT software, for instance, and Hunyh told PI that there are plenty of potential upsides of the use of AI in campaigns, especially for smaller or newer campaigns that might be strapped for cash and resources. “AI and generative AI — it’s here to stay,” he said. “We understand that.” ... The policy statement defines deep fake imagery as “synthetic, computer-generated video, stills, or audio elements derived from a person’s likeness, voice, or image that is so near realistic that it is intended to lead voters to deceptive conclusions alternative to reality about a candidate, party, or issue,” and warns that it will use a “broad standard to review, condemn, and, if necessary, sanction its members” for violating the policy. Ads featuring generative AI are now barred from being eligible for one of the group’s Pollie Awards, and AAPC is also in discussions with platforms that feature political ads regarding the group’s call for advertisers to reject ads featuring deep fake imagery, Huynh told PI. CNBC: Microsoft economist warns of A.I. election interference from ‘bad actors By Rohan Goswami .....People should worry more about “AI being used by bad actors” than they should about AI productivity outpacing human productivity, Microsoft chief economist Michael Schwarz said at a World Economic Forum event Wednesday. “Before AI could take all your jobs, it could certainly do a lot of damage in the hands of spammers, people who want to manipulate elections,” Schwarz added while speaking on a panel on harnessing generative AI. Election Law Blog: “Trump Vows to Empower Political Pastors on Christian Nationalist Broadcast” By Justin Levitt .....Rolling Stone cites the former President’s plans on the Johnson Amendment: “We never enforced it. We essentially ended it. I wasn’t able to finish it. But I’ll finish it this time.” The Johnson Amendment prohibits 501(c)(3) nonprofits, contributions to which are tax-deductible, from participating in campaigns for or against candidates for public office. The Media AP News: Americans fault news media for dividing nation: AP-NORC poll By David Klepper .....When it comes to the news media and the impact it’s having on democracy and political polarization in the United States, Americans are likelier to say it’s doing more harm than good. Nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults say the news media is increasing political polarization in this country, and just under half say they have little to no trust in the media’s ability to report the news fairly and accurately, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights. The poll, released before World Press Freedom Day on Wednesday, shows Americans have significant concerns about misinformation — and the role played by the media itself along with politicians and social media companies in spreading it — but that many are also concerned about growing threats to journalists’ safety. The States The Texan: Free Speech Groups Remain Opposed to Anti-SLAPP Reform Legislation Despite Legislative Changes By Matt Stringer .....Texas lawmakers attempting to reform a law that protects free speech rights say it is being abused and exploited by lawyers to unjustifiably delay civil lawsuits and increase litigation costs, but First Amendment advocates claim the new bill will have grave unintentional consequences for free speech protections. The Citizen Protection Act (CPA) is Texas’ version of anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) laws, which prevent litigation, such as defamation lawsuits, from being used to silence someone from exercising their First Amendment-protected rights like free speech. In short, the law does this by letting defendants file a motion to dismiss the lawsuit against them under the CPA, which forces the often lengthy and costly trial phase of the lawsuit to be stopped until the motion is completely adjudicated. Supporters of Senate Bill (SB) 896 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) say that attorneys have been abusing the motion to dismiss under the CPA in lawsuits that have nothing to do with First Amendment issues, causing litigation to suffer unjustified delays and increased costs. But opponents of the bill overwhelmingly turned out during a committee hearing led by Rep. Jeff Leach (R-Plano) last week with 23 registering in opposition, including news media and free speech organizations, compared to seven registered in support. New York Times: Judge Dismisses Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times By Liam Stack .....A New York judge dismissed former President Donald J. Trump’s lawsuit against The New York Times on Wednesday, saying the newspaper’s Pulitzer Prize-winning investigation into his finances was clearly protected by the First Amendment. Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech ‌ ‌ ‌ The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected]