The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech August 8, 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 Wired: The Internet Speech Case That the Supreme Court Can’t Dodge By Jeff Kosseff .....A Supreme Court opinion in the NetChoice cases, far more than Gonzalez v. Google, has the potential to upend the laissez-faire approach that courts have applied since the internet’s infancy. The NetChoice cases are about more than just liability in lawsuits; they will require the Supreme Court to decide whether online platforms have a First Amendment right to moderate user content. No court had ever before allowed the government to force websites to publish speech. “If allowed to stand, the Fifth Circuit’s opinion will upend settled First Amendment jurisprudence and threaten to transform speech on the internet as we know it today,” NetChoice wrote. Platforms should be free of any direct or indirect government restrictions on their ability to distribute constitutionally protected user-generated content, even if that content is distasteful or objectionable. But the platforms also should have the flexibility to set their own policies, free of government coercion, and create the environments they believe are best suited to their users. The free market—and not the government—should reward or punish these business decisions. The outcome of the cases could reach far beyond content moderation disputes. Candidates and Campaigns Reason: No, Vivek Ramaswamy, 'Political Expression' Shouldn't Be a 'Civil Right' By Stephanie Slade .....In essence, Ramaswamy is suggesting that the government treat political opinions the same way it treats race, which under federal law is a protected class. Employers may not make hiring and firing decisions on the basis of skin color; same goes for landlords deciding whom to rent to, hotel or restaurant owners turning away customers, and so on. To treat viewpoints in the same way would amount to an egregious infringement on the right of free association—that is, our ability to join together with others who share our values or beliefs for a common purpose. Churches, charities, social clubs, and yes, even political entities such as advocacy organizations are all examples... Ask yourself whether a pro-life group should be required by law to accept a job candidate who loudly espouses a right to abortion. How about the reverse? Should an environmentalist nonprofit have to admit members who deny the existence of climate change? Should the libertarian club on campus be compelled to take those who want a larger welfare state and more aggressive intervention in foreign wars? Independent Groups Boston Globe: Critics slam R.I. congressional candidate for family-funded super PAC By Steph Machado and Edward Fitzpatrick .....A candidate for Congress is taking heat this week for a new super PAC funded by members of his family. A mailer in support of Aaron Regunberg, one of the candidates running to replace David Cicilline in Rhode Island’s First Congressional District, was sent out this week by super PAC Progress Rhode Island. The mail piece calls Regunberg “Rhode Island’s progressive champion” with a comic-book style image of Regunberg comparing him to a “superhero.” According to Federal Election Commission filings, the PAC’s only two donors so far are Regunberg’s father-in-law, James Cielinski, who donated $125,000, and his mother Erica Regunberg, who donated $5,000. Washington Post: DeSantis super PAC shares cost for private air travel in unusual deal By Michael Scherer and Isaac Arnsdorf .....An independent group funding much of Ron DeSantis’s presidential effort has become a joint investor with his campaign in a private transportation management company that provides lower-cost airplane leases for the Florida governor, according to two people familiar with the matter. The unusual agreement — which allows both the DeSantis campaign and the Never Back Down super PAC to lease planes in a larger volume at lower market rates — is yet another way that DeSantis and his allies have found to use unlimited donations to help cover the cost of activities historically borne directly by official campaigns. Online Speech Platforms Techdirt: ‘Free Speech Absolutist’ Elon Musk Hides Effective Political Ad That Calls Out GOP By Mike Masnick .....A few weeks ago, the Progress Action Fund released a political ad in Ohio that went somewhat viral on social media... [I]t appears that commercial is a bit too hot and heavy (or upsetting to the Republican party that Elon has publicly said everyone should vote for), that he, free speech warrior that he is, has banned it, and “shadowbanned” (according to Musk and his fans) the Progress Action Fund’s account: NPR: Musk vows to pay legal costs for users who get in trouble at work for their tweets By Juliana Kim .....Elon Musk said X, formerly known as Twitter, will cover the legal costs of anyone who gets in trouble with their boss for their activity on his social media platform. "If you were unfairly treated by your employer due to posting or liking something on this platform, we will fund your legal bill," Musk wrote Saturday on X. The tech billionaire further promised there was "no limit" on the amount the company would be willing to pay — despite plunging advertising revenue and a growing threat to X from Meta's newly unveiled Twitter-like platform, Threads. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Who Can Use Twitter's Offer of Legal Fees "If You Were Unfairly Treated by Your Employer Due to [Tweets]"? By Eugene Volokh .....Many people are unaware of this, but many states, counties, and cities ban even private employers from firing or otherwise disciplining their employees based on the employees' speech or political activity. What's covered varies widely: Some jurisdictions protect a very broad range of speech; others protect "political activity" defined broadly enough to protect a wide range of speech related to political matters; others protect only election-related speech (whether about candidates or ballot measures). There's a map available here, and I also tried including it in this post (right after this paragraph), but a glitch is keeping it from appearing for at least some readers. The States Al.com: Guest opinion: Alabama law is unanimous win for privacy and free speech By Heather Lauer .....At a time when politics can feel hopelessly divided, Alabama lawmakers achieved an unusual victory this session. They set aside their differences and unanimously passed reforms to protect privacy and free speech. Senate Bill 59, also known as The Personal Privacy Protection Act, ensures that Alabamians’ personal information is secure when donating to worthy nonprofit causes. It prohibits state agencies from demanding, collecting, or publicly releasing the names and addresses of nonprofit members and donors, except where required by current law. Public News Service: Maine 'Clean Elections' Campaign Shifts to November Ballot By Kathryn Carley .....Advocates for "clean" elections in Maine are gearing up for a November ballot referendum that would ban foreign government spending in state elections. The Maine Legislature recently passed a bill to enact a ban with broad bipartisan support, but it was ultimately vetoed by Gov. Janet Mills, who said the bill's language raised First Amendment concerns. Washington Examiner: Ohio Republican accuses Libertarians of ‘cancel culture’ after ‘frivolous’ ethics complaint By David Sivak .....Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose is accusing the Libertarian Party in Ohio of trying to silence him after it filed an ethics complaint over his advocacy for a state ballot measure. LaRose, the chief elections official in Ohio, has attended almost 70 events in support of Issue 1, a ballot initiative to make it harder to amend the state's constitution. The measure, to be voted on next week, just months before Ohio voters decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in that constitution, is backed by Republican officials in the state. The Libertarian Party of Ohio, which opposes Issue 1, filed a complaint on Monday with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, arguing that LaRose, who announced a run for Senate in July, is violating the Hatch Act by blurring the lines between his advocacy and his duties as secretary of state. The complaint points to his social media usage and a televised debate he participated in last month at which the moderators introduced him as the secretary of state. 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]