The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech June 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]. The Courts Washington Post: Tennessee drag ban is unconstitutional, federal judge rules By Caroline Anders .....A federal judge struck down a first-of-its-kind Tennessee law that banned drag shows in public or where children could watch them, writing that the unconstitutional measure was passed “for the impermissible purpose of chilling constitutionally-protected speech.” In his ruling issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker wrote that the law violates First Amendment freedom of speech protections and was “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in a statement that he expects to appeal the ruling “at the appropriate time.” FEC Weekly Digest: Week of May 29-June 2, 2023 .....Campaign Legal Center, et al. v. FEC (Case No. 22-5336) On May 31, Former FEC Chair and Commissioner Lee E. Goodman filed a Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellant in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Congress Axios: Scoop: House Democrat's bill would mandate AI disclosure By Andrew Solender and Maria Curi .....Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) is introducing legislation that would require the products of generative artificial intelligence to be accompanied by a disclaimer, Axios has learned... The bill, a copy of which was first obtained by Axios, would require output created by generative AI, such as ChatGPT, to include: "Disclaimer: this output has been generated by artificial intelligence." Enforcement would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission, which imposes civil fines for disclosure violations. The legislation is even broader than a bill introduced by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) in March to require such disclosures for AI-generated political advertising, which has already emerged as a factor in the 2024 election. Online Speech Platforms Reason: YouTube Abandons Election Misinformation Policy That Censored Political Speech By Robby Soave .....YouTube will no longer remove content that promotes false claims about U.S. elections—a tacit admission that the platform's aggressive crackdown on misinformation about the 2020 presidential election had negative consequences for political expression. The company announced the change on Friday. "The ability to openly debate political ideas, even those that are controversial or based on disproven assumptions, is core to a functioning democratic society—especially in the midst of election season," wrote site administrators in a blog post. This is a marked departure from the policy in place at YouTube for the last two years. Wall Street Journal: Twitter’s Top Content Moderation and Safety Executive Leaves By Alexa Corse .....Twitter’s top official for monitoring safety and content moderation said she resigned Thursday, the second time an executive with that role has departed since Elon Musk bought the social-media company in October. Ella Irwin, Twitter’s head of trust and safety, declined to comment on the reason for her departure in an interview with The Wall Street Journal… Also on Thursday, Musk said Twitter employees had erred in how they handled the posting of a documentary called “What is a Woman?” that, according to promotional materials, “questions the logic behind a gender ideology movement that has taken aim at women and children.” Jeremy Boreing, the co-founder and co-CEO of the media company The Daily Wire, said in a series of tweets that Twitter had tried to suppress the movie by saying the content violated Twitter’s policy against misgendering. “This was a mistake by many people at Twitter,” Musk tweeted in response to Boreing’s complaints. “Whether or not you agree with using someone’s preferred pronouns, not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws.” He added that he personally uses someone’s preferred pronouns. Internet Speech Regulation Reason: Childproofing the Internet By Elizabeth Nolan Brown .....For the past several years, lawmakers and bureaucrats around the country have been trying to solve a problem. They wanted to regulate the internet, and in particular, they wanted to censor content and undermine a variety of systems that allow for privacy and anonymity online—the systems, in other words, that allow for online individuals to conduct themselves freely and outside of the purview of politicians. There was something like a bipartisan agreement on the necessity of these rules and regulations. Lawmakers and regulators test-drove a number of potential arguments for online speech rules, including political bias, political extremism, drug crime, or the fact some tech companies are just really big. But it turned out to be quite difficult to drum up support for wonky causes like antitrust reform or amending the internet liability law Section 230, and even harder to make the case that the sheer size of companies like Amazon was really the problem. Their efforts tended to falter because they lacked a consensus justification. Those in power knew what they wanted to do. They just didn't know why, or how. But in statehouses and in Congress today, that problem appears to have been solved. Politicians looking to censor online content and more tightly regulate digital life have found their reason: child safety. Nonprofits Washington Examiner: Liberal dark money-linked Supreme Court group slapped with IRS complaint By Gabe Kaminsky .....A liberal dark money-linked advocacy group calling for Supreme Court "transparency" is being accused by a conservative watchdog in an IRS complaint of unlawfully overpaying its executive director. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans have alleged hypocrisy after Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a nonprofit group helping to lead a campaign demanding Supreme Court justices disclose more about their finances, panicked after unwittingly leaking his group's 2021 and 2022 donors to the Washington Examiner. But because Fix the Court's 2022 tax forms revealed Roth was paid "a whopping 82% of the nonprofit's total revenue," the National Legal and Policy Center is urging the IRS to launch an investigation and revoke the group's tax-exempt status, according to a complaint Friday to the agency. Candidates and Campaigns OpenSecrets: The nationalization of political contributions and the rising role of out-of-state donations By Sarah Bryner .....This report explores whether candidates up and down the ballot are raising more money from outside their own states and districts and identifies trends that merit further research. Federal candidates are increasingly reliant on out-of-state contributions, OpenSecrets analysis found, while out-of-state contributions have been slower to enter state races. OpenSecrets — using street address information for campaign donors provided by state campaign finance agencies and the Federal Election Commission — has long tracked and displayed the amount of money candidates for public office collect from both inside and outside their districts and states. But prior to this analysis, OpenSecrets had yet to explore these trends over time or extend this work beyond candidates for federal office. Election Law Blog: Must Read on How Outside Donors Have Undermined State Political Parties and the Electoral Consequences By Richard Pildes .....This was one of the more fascinating pieces I’ve read on the sources of weakness in modern state parties, how that weakness affects their competitiveness, and the role of non-party, outside donors in that process. We’ve known that the McCain-Feingold law caused enormous damage to state political parties, and it’s unclear what role that law might have played in the background. This story is primarily about outside donor alliances that think they can perform party functions better than the parties. The story is about the decline of the Democratic Party in Florida, written by a long-time Democratic political operative there. The whole story is worth reading. The story is titled: “Anatomy of a Murder: How the Democratic Party Crashed in Florida.” It appears here. Some excerpts: The States Minnesota Star Tribune: Minnesota climate turns chilly for free speech By Annette Meeks and Eric Wang .....Civic groups engaged in Minnesota communities will soon find it more dangerous to speak about issues of public concern. The Legislature recently pushed through a sweeping elections bill (HF 3) over Republican opposition that Gov. Tim Walz quickly signed into law. While much ink has been spilled on the measure's election law and voting provisions, other sinister aspects have gone largely unnoticed. The new law puts Minnesotans at risk of targeting and harassment for supporting nonprofit groups. It does so by giving the unelected state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board greater power to regulate these organizations on a subjective basis under a convoluted reporting requirement. The likely result: Many Minnesotans who give to nonprofits with no intention of supporting political spending may be publicly exposed to harassment and intimidation for their beliefs. People United for Privacy: Webinar: Legal Experts Analyze the Threat to Privacy in Arizona Prop 211 By Luke Wachob ......On Tuesday, June 6, a panel of legal experts will discuss the law’s harmful effects on privacy and free speech and offer insights on the lawsuits attempting to strike it down. The event, sponsored by People United for Privacy, will take place virtually as part of the Arizona Capitol Times’ “Morning Scoop” series. Registration is free, and viewers can watch live at 11 AM ET / 8 AM PT or receive a recording after the conversation concludes. Panelists include: Lee Goodman, Partner, Wiley Rein LLP, and Former Chairman, Federal Election Commission Roy Herrera, Partner, Herrera Arellano LLP Stephen Shadegg, Arizona State Director, Americans for Prosperity 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]