This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].  

.....Institute for Free Speech is hiring a Director of Development responsible for developing and implementing a fundraising plan and managing all development efforts.

Wall Street Journal: The Smearing of Lorie Smith

By Kristen Waggoner and Erin Hawley

.....The permanent political campaign against the Supreme Court has expanded to target successful litigants. Last month the justices ruled in favor of our client Lorie Smith in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a landmark victory for free speech. Although this ruling benefits people across the ideological spectrum, some on the left—including many in the press—have responded with a disinformation effort against Ms. Smith.

Politico: Appeals court upholds but narrows sex-trafficking statute

.....A federal appeals court has upheld key portions of a federal law Congress passed to combat sex trafficking online, but the court rejected broad readings of the statute that critics warned could intrude on First Amendment-protected speech.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that language in the 2018 Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act — better known as FOSTA — is not unconstitutionally vague and doesn’t violate free-speech rights.

Washington Post: How DeSantis’s own lawyers accidentally exposed his anti-woke deceit

By Greg Sargent

.....In recent weeks, plaintiffs who are suing to invalidate Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s “Stop Woke Act” have been confronting its defenders with a seemingly loaded question: Would the law, which restricts school discussion of race, prohibit a public university professor from endorsing affirmative action in a classroom setting?

The bizarre admission comes in a new filing by lawyers defending the Stop Woke Act against a lawsuit from professors and free-speech advocates who argue that it violates the First Amendment and restricts academic freedom. (Last November, a federal judge agreed, temporarily blocking the law’s application to public universities.) The plaintiffs have objected that under the law, a professor might risk her job by uttering the phrase “I agree with affirmative action.”

Reason: Critics of the Ruling Against Biden's Anti-'Misinformation' Crusade See No Threat to Freedom of Speech

.....Last week, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction that bars a long list of federal officials and agencies from encouraging social media platforms to suppress politically disfavored speech. The response to that decision starkly illustrates an alarming erosion of bipartisan support for the evenhanded application of free speech principles.

Techdirt: The Good, The Bad, And The Incredibly Ugly In The Court Ruling Regarding Government Contacts With Social Media

.....Doughty seems incredibly willing to include perfectly reasonable conversations about how to respond to actually problematic content as “censorship” and “coercion,” despite there being little evidence of either in many cases (again, in some cases, it does appear that some folks in the administration crossed the line).

For example, it’s public information (as we’ve discussed) that various parts of the government would meet with social media not for “censorship” but to share information, such as about foreign trolls seeking to disrupt elections with false information, or about particular dangers. These meetings were not about censorship, but just making everyone aware of what was going on. But conspiracy-minded folks have turned those meetings into something they most definitely are not.

In doing so, Doughty often fails to distinguish perfectly reasonable speech by government actors that is not about suppressing speech, but rather debunking or countering false information — which is traditional counterspeech.

New York Times: F.B.I. Director to Testify Before House Panel as It Assails the Bureau

By Adam Goldman and Glenn Thrush

..... Christopher A. Wray, the F.B.I. director, is expected to confront an extraordinary political storm on Wednesday when he testifies before Congress, with Republicans who once defended the bureau now denouncing it as a weapon wielded against former President Donald J. Trump and his supporters.

The Hill: Senators grapple with response to AI after first classified briefing

.....Senators left their first classified briefing on artificial intelligence (AI) with increased concerns about the risks posed by the technology and no clear battle lines on a legislative plan to regulate the booming industry. 

People United for Privacy: Over 70 Nonprofits Urge Congress to Support the ACE Act’s Donor Privacy Protections

.....People United for Privacy led a coalition of more than 70 nonprofit organizations today in sending a letter to Congress urging support for the free speech and donor privacy protections of the “American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act” (H.R. 4563) The legislation was introduced on July 11 by House Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil.

The Dispatch Podcast: ‘Independent Journalism Is a Good Fit for Any Moment, but Particularly This Moment’

By Steve Hayes and Sarah Isgur

.....To listen to the full episode, click here.

Steve Hayes and Sarah Isgur sat down last week with New York Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger at the paper’s headquarters. Sulzberger recently wrote an essay in the Columbia Journalism Review detailing his approach to independent journalism, the alleged institutional hostility towards conservatives, and the path to rebuilding trust in news. The three discussed the difference between independent journalism and objective journalism, the public’s lack of trust in the mainstream media, and how to rebuild that trust in our polarized times. A transcript of their conversation follows.

CNN: Meta cut election teams months before Threads launch, raising concerns for 2024

By Donie O'Sullivan and Sean Lyngaas

.....Meta has made cuts to its teams that tackle disinformation and coordinated troll and harassment campaigns on its platforms, people with direct knowledge of the situation told CNN, raising concerns ahead of the pivotal 2024 elections in the US and around the world.

New York Times: DeSantis’s Striking, Risky Strategy: Not Trying to Trick Small Donors

By Nicholas Nehamas, Rebecca Davis O’Brien and Shane Goldmacher

.....No phony deadlines, Mr. DeSantis has promised donors. No wildly implausible pledges that sizable contributions will be matched by committees affiliated with the campaign. And no tricking donors into recurring donations.

This strategy is one of the subtle ways Mr. DeSantis’s team is trying to contrast him with Mr. Trump, who has often cajoled, guilt-tripped and occasionally misled small donors.

Wall Street Journal (LTE): Transparency in Digital Campaign Spending

By Phil Vangelakos

.....In “The High Cost of Losing Elections” (Inside View, June 26), Andy Kessler claims there is little transparency to digital spending in political campaigns. On the contrary, with many campaigns raising the majority of funds from online grassroots donations, spending for digital fundraising is one of the most scrutinized line items for any campaign. It has to be, or else you go broke. That means daily reports, regular meetings with campaign management to maximize return on investment, and quarterly compliance reporting to the Federal Election Commission.

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 political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.