This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
Supreme Court
By Adam Liptak
.....The Biden administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to decide whether the Constitution allows Florida and Texas to prevent large social media companies from removing posts based on the views they express.
The administration’s brief, which was requested by the justices as they considered whether to hear the case, also urged the court to rule for the companies if review is granted.
“The platforms’ content-moderation activities are protected by the First Amendment,” Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar wrote.
|
|
The Courts
By Luc Cohen
.....Sam Bankman-Fried used money he stole from customers of his FTX cryptocurrency exchange to make more than $100 million in political campaign contributions before the 2022 U.S. midterm elections, federal prosecutors said on Monday.
An amended indictment accused the 31-year-old former billionaire of directing two FTX executives to evade contribution limits by donating to Democrats and Republicans, and to conceal where the money came from.
|
|
By Alan Z. Rozenshtein
.....In the two weeks since Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted former President Donald Trump for his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, the outlines of Trump’s trial strategy have taken shape. Trump has claimed that the indictment seeks to take away his “FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.” His lawyer, John Lauro, is frantically trying to position his client as a hero of “free speech and political advocacy,” arguing that Trump “had every right to advocate for his position” about the presidential election…
The crimes that Trump is charged with in the January 6 indictment—obstruction, fraud, and conspiracy—fall squarely into the category of speech, in the ordinary sense of the word, that is not protected by the First Amendment. (The same is true for the racketeering, solicitation, and conspiracy charges that Fani Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, has brought against Trump for his attempt to interfere with Georgia’s presidential-election results.) This should not be controversial.
|
|
Congress
By Casey Harper, The Center Square
.....House Republicans have launched an inquiry into whether foreign actors are funneling money through nonprofit groups to influence America’s elections.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-MO., and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert, R-Ariz., released an open letter soliciting input on the matter, suggesting that some nonprofit groups may be violating the law to help political parties and candidates.
“Public reporting has raised questions about whether tax-exempt sectors are operating in a manner consistent with the laws and regulations that govern such organizations and whether foreign funds are flowing through these organizations to influence American politics,” the letter said.
|
|
FEC
By Hany Farid
.....If the FEC believes that manipulating the photographic record in campaigns should be banned or regulated, it should focus on the content, not the mechanism by which the content is manipulated. In this regard, focusing on generative AI is somewhat myopic, as it allows so-called cheap fakes — those not using AI — and emerging technologies to slip through the cracks…
Although we have already seen campaigns use generative AI to attack their competitors, this same technology can also be used to bolster one’s own candidate. A photo of a candidate at a rally can, for example, be manipulated to make the crowd look larger, or a video of a candidate can be modified to make him sound and look more commanding. The FEC will need to consider whether and how to regulate a campaign’s use of manipulated media in the service of its own candidate.
|
|
Free Expression
By Angel Eduardo
.....The Court’s decision in Smith’s favor—ruling that “the United States is a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands”—protects all of us from imposition on our ability to express ourselves.
But you wouldn’t know that from much of the commentary the case has gotten. From pieces in the Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal to statements from the Arizona Attorney General and the legal director of the ACLU, a disconcerting amount of rhetoric regarding the [303 Creative v. Elenis] ruling has fixated on the particulars of the case and completely missed the guiding thread.
I strongly disagree with Smith’s views on same-sex marriage. But the Constitution or constitutional law can’t work on the basis of my or anyone else’s preferences or opinions on such issues. The thing about principles is that they must be consistent, and that sometimes means swallowing hard pills. I recognize that Smith has a right to her views, no matter how backward I might find them—and I know that protecting her right to those views also protects my right to my own.
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Brett Samuels
.....As artificial intelligence slowly seeps into the political space, one company is harnessing the technology to help write fundraising email copy for campaigns.
Writing out campaign fundraising emails can be tedious, time-consuming and contribute to burnout for political staff in a field that already sees high turnover.
Quiller, founded by Democratic strategist Mike Nellis, aims to use artificial intelligence to give Democratic campaigns a first draft of fundraising emails.
Hillary Lehr, Quiller’s CEO, described the benefits of the product in three ways: “Efficiency, access and combating burnout for staff.”
“The narrative is that AI is a job killer, but the point here is it can combat burnout in this field,” Lehr said in an interview with The Hill.
|
|
The States
By Eric Tegethoff
.....Campaign-finance watchdog groups are standing up in favor of Washington's disclosure law in court. Facebook parent company Meta has challenged the constitutionality of the state's disclosure law, which requires ad sellers to keep records of how much buyers paid and who the ad targeted. Meta has called the law burdensome on free speech and nearly impossible to comply with.
Tara Malloy, senior director for appellate litigation and strategy with Campaign Legal Center, said her organization and other election oversight groups have filed a brief weighing in favor of Washington's disclosure law.
|
|
By Mary Ellen Klas
.....An internal war has erupted in the American Civil Liberties Union as the organization that once defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is being sued by ousted members of the board of directors of its Florida affiliate because, they say, they resisted putting partisan politics over free speech protections. In a lawsuit filed in state court in Sarasota late Friday, the seven board members — Jeanne Baker, Michael Barfield, James Benjamin, Jeff Borg, Daniel Cook, Marcia Hayden and Martin Novoa — allege that they were wrongfully removed last year by the national organization after objecting to the organization’s shift in mission. The lawsuit asks the court to restore their positions on the board and rule that the national organization and the staff of ACLU Florida violated the law when it removed the board because it was “unhappy with governance decisions that resisted partisan political activity, the mission drift away from core civil liberties issues towards socio-economic justice and other oversight functions exercised by the board of directors over staff.” ...
The cleavage began in 2017, according to the 77-page complaint filed in Sarasota district court, when ACLU national started a “nationwide campaign known as ‘People Power’ whose purpose was to organize at the grassroots level in response to the election of Donald Trump as President.” The lawsuit alleges that the People Power group engaged “partisan conduct under the name and logo of the ACLU in violation of longstanding policy: improper fundraising solicitations; and advocating support for non-civil liberties goals” and “neither the ACLU-FL board nor the board leadership had any input into the decision.”
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
