The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 12, 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]. New from the Institute for Free Speech Bradley A. Smith Highlights Critical Importance of Free Political Speech at Committee on House Administration Hearing .....Institute for Free Speech Chairman and Founder Bradley A. Smith discussed the fundamental importance of safeguarding Americans’ ability to speak freely at a House of Representatives Committee on House Administration hearing on May 11. The hearing, “American Confidence in Elections: Protecting Political Speech,” covered a variety of topics central to the issue of defending Americans’ right to political speech. In particular, the hearing concerned the American Confidence in Elections Act (ACE). The proposed legislation offers a range of reforms to strengthen political speech protections, including specific measures aimed at the Internal Revenue Service, as well as provisions related to campaign finance restrictions... Smith also highlighted the importance of donor privacy, noting that “Free societies thrive on the public exchange of ideas. The First Amendment protects not only the brave, but it also protects the meek, the weak, and minorities of all kinds.” He added that support for a cause, even if the support is in the form of a small donation, can generate retribution—sometimes years later. This danger underscores the need for strong donor privacy protections. Without such protections, many Americans may be discouraged from speaking in the first place for fear of negative consequences. Video of Smith’s opening statement, as well as video of the entire hearing, may be viewed below: Updates to the Anti-SLAPP Report Card .....This blog post provides information on states that have either enacted new anti-SLAPP laws or improved existing laws since the February 2022 publication of our Anti-SLAPP Report Card. May 2, 2023: Connecticut Supreme Court Rules State’s Anti-SLAPP Law Includes a Right to an Interlocutory Appeal In three separate decisions (Smith v. Supple, Pryor v. Brignole, Robinson v. V. D.) released on May 2, 2023, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state’s law affords defendants the right to an “immediate appeal” of a trial court’s denial of an anti-SLAPP motion. The absence of an explicit, statutory right to such an appeal was the most significant flaw of Connecticut’s anti-SLAPP law. While the statute (§ 52-196a) references an “interlocutory appeal,” the text did not expressly provide defendants the right to an immediate appeal. Fortunately, the state’s highest court has now cleared up the confusion. Case law and legislative history filled in the gaps for the court: Congress Roll Call: House GOP election law overhaul may try to protect donors By Justin Papp .....House Administration Committee Republicans argued for strengthening voter identification laws, while loosening donor disclosure requirements, as they prepare legislation aimed at protecting political speech in elections. At a committee hearing Thursday, they said the First Amendment is under attack from “misinformation czars” and “cancel culture,” and that Congress needs to act to bolster election integrity and voter confidence. “Political speech is protected speech,” House Administration Chair Bryan Steil, R-Wis., said in his opening remarks. “Unfortunately, in our highly politicized, political culture and climate, the First Amendment has been under attack. … As a result, many Americans have grown concerned that their voices will be suppressed, or that their beliefs will be weaponized against them.” The hearing was the second in a series that will culminate in the reintroduction of the American Confidence in Elections Act, which was first introduced by Republicans in 2022 and includes a long list of conservative election priorities... Panelist Harmeet Dhillon, who in January ran unsuccessfully to be Republican National Committee chair, said disclosure requirements could deter people from making donations. Federalist: Republicans Say Biden’s Department Of Homeland Security Using ‘Censorship Laundering’ Paid For By Taxpayers To Silence Dissent By Jordan Boyd .....The Department of Homeland Security is using hard-earned tax dollars to smear and censor Americans they deem guilty of spreading “mis-, dis-, and malformation,” House Republicans on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability say. New York Post: Senate Republican unveils bill to end government internet censorship By Steven Nelson .....Missouri GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt will introduce legislation Wednesday that would outlaw government-requested censorship of lawful online speech — restarting discussion of how to accomplish the lofty goal after earlier ideas stalled. Schmitt’s COLLUDE Act would strip Big Tech platforms of legal immunity for third-party content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 if they cooperate with government demands to remove First Amendment-protected speech... The COLLUDE Act‘s full name is the Curtailing Online Limitations that Lead Unconstitutionally to Democracy’s Erosion Act. Although it faces an uphill climb in the Democrat-held Senate, Schmitt’s proposal offers a fresh idea for heading off federal efforts to police so-called disinformation on subjects such as COVID-19 and alleged political corruption, after repeated instances of censored perspectives later gaining broad acceptance as fact. Washington Examiner: Colleges could pay damages for silencing campus speech under new legislation By Jeremiah Poff .....A group of Senate Republicans led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) introduced legislation on Wednesday that would see universities that violate freedom of speech liable for court damages. The Campus Free Speech Restoration Act would bar public colleges and universities from restricting student expression and would empower aggrieved parties or the U.S. attorney general to sue institutions and receive damages if the school restricted the free speech rights of students. The Courts New Yorker: The Dark Side of Defamation Law By Jeannie Suk Gersen .....Our political culture is now strewn with lies; the Washington Post fecklessly awards Pinocchios, but few liars are truly held to account. And though castigating political actors is part of the rough and tumble of the public arena, lies about them are peculiarly damaging to the commonweal. Morally, Hoft’s defense may be preposterous; legally, it is all too plausible. Contemplating future media-stoked “stop the steal” campaigns, we ought to consider whether Elena Kagan had a point. What if democracy would be better served by narrowing the purview of New York Times v. Sullivan, reducing the culture of impunity, and encouraging media outlets to be more responsible about the facts they purvey? In truth, stricter defamation laws won’t save us, either. In the first several decades of our Republic, an era during which libel plaintiffs routinely prevailed in court (when they didn’t resort to pistols), newspapers—operating mainly as organs of political parties—were positively littered with libel. Gizmodo: Biden's 'Disinfo Overlord' Sues Fox News for Defamation By Nikki Main .....Fox News is once again under scrutiny for a lawsuit filed by former Biden administration disinformation chief Nina Jankowicz on Wednesday. Jankowicz claims Fox News hosts carried out a “malicious campaign of destruction” that continues to threaten her safety and harm her career. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson is cited in the complaint for falsely telling viewers that Jankowicz aimed to censor Americans’ speech and that she had been fired from her position. The complaint claims Carlson, along with hosts Maria Bartiromo and Sean Hannity told viewers that Jankowicz’s job was “to silence anyone who criticizes the Biden administration,” and Carlson warned she would “get men with guns to tell you to shut up.” The lawsuit says Fox News’ claims hindered Jankowicz’s ability to live a normal life and resulted in her resignation from her position with the Biden administration to escape the seemingly endless criticism. Nonprofits New York Times: Group Tied to Influential Conservative Activist Spent $183 Million in a Year By Rebecca Davis O’Brien .....A deep-pocketed nonprofit organization founded by the conservative activist Leonard A. Leo gave away $182.7 million in a year’s time, a new tax filing shows, demonstrating how aggressively it has worked behind the scenes to prop up other groups and causes on the right. The organization, Marble Freedom Trust, was formed in 2020 and was funded by a gift of more than $1.6 billion — an extraordinary windfall that resulted from a single donor’s contribution of 100 percent of a company’s shares before the company was sold, leaving Marble with the proceeds of the sale, The New York Times reported last year... In a statement responding to questions about Marble’s work, Mr. Leo described it as an attempt to match Democratic efforts in the world of so-called dark money, a term used to describe the vast flow of funds — often from untraceable donors — through nonprofits and other organizations into politics and political causes. Democrats raised and spent more dark money for the 2020 election than Republicans did. Online Speech Platforms Daily Caller: Will Musk’s Reported Pick For Twitter CEO Usher In Another Era Of Censorship? By Jason Cohen .....Linda Yaccarino, Elon Musk’s reported pick to become the next CEO of Twitter, is already stirring speculation that she will push Twitter in a direction less friendly to free speech. While Yaccarino’s appointment to head Twitter is not official, multiple outlets have reported that she is likely to be Musk’s successor; she also left her role at NBCUniversal as chair of Global Advertising and Partnerships early Friday. However, Yaccarino’s work, particularly her position at the World Economic Forum (WEF), an organization staffed with members of the global elite class that routinely advocates for censorship, is raising concerns that her leadership could usher in increased suppression of content, particularly from conservatives. The States Center Square: Gov. Inslee signs ‘deepfake’ disclosure bill into law By Brett Davis .....Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee on Tuesday signed into law legislation that requires clear disclosure whenever media that has been manipulated as such is used for election campaigns. Engrossed Senate Substitute Bill 5152 defines “synthetic media” – more commonly known as “deepfakes” – in campaigns for elected office and provides political candidates with legal safeguards in civil court against tampered-with videos, audio and images used in political advertisements. That definition, according to the bill, is “an image, an audio recording, or a video recording of an individual's appearance, speech, or conduct that has been intentionally manipulated with the use of generative adversarial network techniques or other digital technology in a manner to create a realistic but false image, audio, or video…” ABC 13: Texas House committee advances tweak to First Amendment protection law By Chauncy Glover .....A proposed state law could make it a lot easier for someone to sue you for saying something they don't like. Normally, Texas law makes it pretty tough for someone to sue you for protected speech, but this change could leave Texans responsible for lengthy court battles and legal fees -- even if what was said is covered by the First Amendment. A Texas House committee has advanced changes to the state Anti-SLAPP law. Senate Bill 896 would revise the 2011 Texas Citizens Participation Act, which provides free speech protection. ABC13 is opposed to this bill. ABC13 anchor Chauncy Glover pointed out that members of the media are saying, "Don't mess with free speech and our ability to do fair investigative journalism that holds leaders accountable, without fear or favor." Politico: Top New York City Hall aide worked quietly with state super PAC By Joe Anuta .....An independent expenditure committee supporting a suite of moderate state Assembly candidates last year received assistance from a previously unknown source — a top aide to Mayor Eric Adams… State laws are clear. New York City officials are allowed to raise money for political causes — except their own candidacy — provided they do it after hours and do not explicitly trade favors. And there is no evidence [aide Ingrid] Lewis-Martin engaged in any quid pro quos. However, the previously unreported arrangement alarmed watchdog groups over its potential to create a conflict of interest. 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]