The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech July 17, 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 Bloomberg Law: Deepfake Ads Strain Pre-AI Campaign Laws, Puzzling US Regulators By Jorja Siemons .....Determining what is true and false gets into the gray areas of campaign regulations... For First Amendment groups, concrete government intervention could harm the public’s free speech rights. “If a candidate says ‘this person has done a terrible thing’ often those are statements of just belief,” said Bradley Smith, chairman of the Institute for Free Speech. “It may be wrong, there may be something that most of us would objectively look at and say is wrong, but if a person believes it is right, we should be leery about trying to have the government step in and be an arbiter of the truth.” The Institute for Free Speech has argued that activist efforts to expand the FEC’s political speech regulations would be “harmful and unwise.” Still, Smith, a former FEC Republican commissioner from 2000 to 2005, distinguished between deepfakes and other issues threatening free speech. “It’s sort of a fraud,” Smith said about deepfakes. “It’s problematic in a way that goes outside of the normal free speech concerns that campaigns should be able to say whatever they want.” Smith said there’s a case to be made that politicians would have to disclose if their ads include deepfakes, but he’s not sure the FEC has any authority beyond the certain minimal disclosures it requires of candidates under federal election law. The Courts Politico: Appeals court temporarily blocks order that restricted feds’ contact with social media firms By Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney .....A federal appeals court has put a temporary hold on a district court judge’s unusual order restricting a wide swath of federal officials and agencies from communicating with social media companies about content on their platforms. A three-judge panel considering emergency matters for the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted the Biden administration’s request to put the far-reaching preliminary injunction on hold for now while the case is referred to another appeals panel that will consider a longer-term stay of U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty’s Independence Day order. Reason: Who Is Protected As a Journalist? Everybody, Suggests Court Ruling. By J.D. Tuccille .....When are people observing official doings real journalists and when are they annoyances to be ushered away by the cops? A recent federal court decision supports the idea that First Amendment protections extend not to journalists as a special class, but to anybody engaged in journalism. This is good news for Justin Pulliam, a citizen journalist suing the Fort Bend County, Texas, sheriff's department, but it should also be welcomed by anybody interested in free expression and holding government accountable. "Justin Pulliam, a citizen journalist arrested while covering Fort Bend County Sheriff's deputies, won a first-round victory in his civil rights lawsuit brought by the Institute for Justice (IJ)," the organization announced this week. "A federal district court rejected the sheriff's attempt to dismiss the case. Pulliam will have the opportunity to hold the sheriff and his deputies responsible for violating his First Amendment rights to record the police and to be treated the same as established media or other members of the public." Washington Post: Professors sue Texas over TikTok ban, signaling First Amendment fight By Drew Harwell .....A group of college professors is suing Texas for banning TikTok on public-university computers and phones, saying it has undermined their ability to teach students and research one of the world’s most popular apps… In a lawsuit filed in Austin on Thursday against Abbott and top Texas officials, the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, an advocacy group whose members include professors in Texas, argued the ban had infringed on their academic freedoms and constitutional rights. “The government’s authority to control their research and teaching … cannot survive First Amendment scrutiny,” the complaint states… Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which filed the suit on the coalition’s behalf, said the ban is not a “sensible or constitutional response” to critics’ worries that the app could be used for propaganda or espionage. “The ban is suppressing research about the very concerns that Governor Abbott has raised, about disinformation, about data collection,” Jaffer said. “There are other ways to address those concerns that don’t impose the same severe burden on faculty and researchers’ First Amendment rights,” he added, as well as their “ability to continue studying what has, like it or not, become a hugely popular and influential communications platform.” FEC MURs 7724/7752 (Johnny Teague for Congress, et al).: Statement of Reasons of Commissioner Allen J. Dickerson .....The Constitution prohibits the government from discriminating against religious expression, from privileging commercial speech over religious speech, and from expressing official disapproval concerning the free exercise of religion. In these Matters, our Office of General Counsel (“OGC”) recommended, and several of my colleagues supported, an approach that would have done all those things. Accordingly, I voted to dismiss these Matters pursuant to this agency’s prosecutorial discretion, as the Office of General Counsel recommended. But I declined to adopt OGC’s recommendation that the Commission issue letters of caution expressing its official disapproval of Respondents’ sincere religious expression. Congress Politico (Congress Minutes): A bid to protect lawmakers’ personal info online faces pushback from pro-transparency groups. .....A proposal to give federal lawmakers the legal right to scrub personal info about them and their family members from the internet is facing resistance from pro-transparency groups, who fear that the measure could interfere with watchdog journalism. Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who are offering the legislation as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, contend the protections are needed as federal officials and their families face an onslaught of threats to their personal safety from disgruntled constituents and others. Free Expression Reason: Texas A&M's Treatment of Journalism Director Raises Academic Freedom Concerns By Emma Camp .....Texas A&M University has come under fire for pushing out an incoming director of the school's journalism program following a series of complaints over her political views. Last month, Texas A&M announced that it had appointed Kathleen McElroy, the director of the journalism program at the University of Texas at Austin from 2016 to 2022, to lead Texas A&M's journalism program. According to The Texas Tribune, McElroy originally received an offer to run the program as a tenured professor, pending approval of the school's board of regents. However, McElroy says that the school soon began altering the terms of her contract, following conservative backlash over her writing on racism and diversity initiatives within newsrooms and college campuses. According to the Tribune, several members of the school's board of regents had read an article in the Texas Scorecard highlighting McElroy's views on faculty diversity and objectivity in journalism. The article quoted extensively from an op-ed McElroy had written for The Daily Texan in 2020, where McElroy called for tracking faculty diversity and wrote that "because of racism throughout fundamental American institutions—including education and, in my particular field, journalism—growing diversity in higher education seems difficult." Daily Beast: How a Bogus Lawsuit Led to the Titan Sub Tragedy By Ari Cohn .....[W]hen one of his own employees sounded the alarm about OceanGate’s dangerous trajectory, Rush lashed out with a SLAPP. David Lochridge, once OceanGate’s director of marine operations and chief submersible pilot, had serious concerns about the Titan’s safety. After his concerns were ignored by the company, Lochridge wrote a detailed inspection report of the vessel’s defects—resulting in his termination. When the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) informed OceanGate that it was investigating Lochridge’s termination as a whistleblower protection matter, things took an even uglier turn. Rush and OceanGate had Washington attorney Thomas Gilman threaten that, if Lochridge did not withdraw his OSHA complaint and pay the company’s legal expenses, OceanGate would “sue him, take measures to destroy his professional reputation, and accuse him of immigration fraud.” And OceanGate did exactly that. Ultimately, after being put through financial and emotional hell, Lochridge settled with OceanGate. In order to get the company to stop destroying his life, Lochridge withdrew his OSHA complaint and was forced into silence about the Titan’s safety issues… Thirty-two states (and Washington, D.C.) have passed anti-SLAPP laws of varying strength that allow defendants to obtain speedy dismissal and force SLAPP-filers to cover their legal fees. Ed. note: Read our national survey of anti-SLAPP laws, the Anti-SLAPP Report Card. Independent Groups New York Times: Trump Super PAC Made $155,000 Payment to Melania Trump in 2021 By Shane Goldmacher and Maggie Haberman .....A super PAC aligned with former President Donald J. Trump paid Melania Trump $155,000 in late 2021, an unusual payment that was not visible in the group’s initial federal reports and came to light only in a filing by Mr. Trump on Thursday. Online Speech Platforms Washington Post: Meta is done moderating. On Threads, users decide what they see. By Naomi Nix .....For years Meta’s role as an arbiter of speech has placed it in a political hot seat: Conservatives charge it with politically motivated censorship, while liberals contend leaving harmful content online fuels its spread. But with the launch of its buzzy new Twitter alternative, Threads, Meta sees an opportunity to excise itself from the debate by putting the onus of policing its fledgling platform on users. As it builds out Threads, Meta will probably offer users control over what kind of content they see — including the diciest and most controversial posts — rather than the company making those decisions on its own, Meta Global Affairs President Nick Clegg told The Washington Post. That’s a strategy that Meta has already embraced on Facebook, where the company has increasingly given users more ways to shape what appears in their news feeds. “I hope over time we’ll have less of a discussion about what our big, crude algorithmic choices are and more about whether you guys feel that the individual controls we’re giving you on Threads feel meaningful to you,” he said in the interview. Candidates and Campaigns The Atlantic: The Fundraising Stunts Are Getting Out of Control By David A. Graham .....You don’t become a billionaire without being clever with money, but Doug Burgum’s latest scheme is a head-scratcher: The North Dakota governor is offering $20 gift cards to people who donate one greenback dollar to his presidential campaign. His fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is offering a 10 percent commission to anyone who brings in donations. A super PAC supporting Miami Mayor Francis Suarez is offering one donor a year of free college tuition. Critics have long pointed out how big money distorts politics, but these fundraising stunts demonstrate how now even small money has come to warp campaigns. These GOP candidates are trying to reach a Republican National Committee threshold of 40,000 individual donors, including 200 each in 20 states or territories, to qualify for primary debates. The RNC has set a high bar to make sure that candidates have real support—and perhaps to downplay the influence of major donors. But the effect may be the opposite: enticing candidates to try novel tactics to create the illusion of real support, because they know that getting on the debate stage is essential for remaining viable and attracting those big donors. As the old saying goes, it takes money to make money. The States New Jersey Monitor: Lawsuit challenges law that shields home addresses of judges, law enforcement By Sophie Nieto-Muñoz .....A New Jersey law that shields the home addresses of judges and law enforcement officers from the public is unconstitutional when applied to journalists seeking to report on public officials, the American Civil Liberties of New Jersey argues in a new lawsuit targeting New Brunswick officials. The statute, known as Daniel’s Law, makes it more difficult for journalists to ascertain the addresses of public officials, and in some cases “creates a chilling fear of criminal and civil prosecution,” the ACLU said in a brief in the case, filed Wednesday in state Superior Court in Middlesex County. The ACLU in this case represents Charlie Kratovil, the editor of New Brunswick Today, who was served with a cease-and-desist notice by New Brunswick’s police director, Anthony Caputo, after Kratovil said during a public meeting that Caputo lives on a specific street in Cape May, according to the complaint. Kratovil obtained the address through a public records request of Caputo’s voting profile. Boston Herald: Michelle Wu administration admits it sent a list of vocal critics to police By Joe Battenfeld .....The Wu administration has acknowledged it has compiled a list of Mayor Michelle Wu’s most vocal critics and sent it to the Boston Police Department, claiming security concerns. “The list was made in response to a request from the Boston Police Department after the Mayor had been harassed and physically intimidated by individuals for several months outside her home, at city functions such as the annual neighborhood parks coffee hours, and at other public events,” Wu spokesman Ricardo Patron said in a statement to the Herald. This is the first time the Wu administration has admitted it compiled such a list, which was uncovered in an email by a group of Wu opponents through a public records request. It shows the Wu administration taking the offensive against her opponents, coming on the heels of passing an ordinance prohibiting protests outside the mayor’s Roslindale home during certain hours. But the unusual action raises questions about whether it crosses the line into using Nixonian tactics to suppress people’s rights to protest and intimidate her critics. 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. 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]