This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
FEC
.....The Federal Election Commission is seeking public comment on a petition for rulemaking regarding the use of artificial intelligence in campaign advertisements, according to the agency Wednesday.
The petitioner, Public Citizen, requested the FEC amend its regulation to make it clear a prohibition on misrepresenting candidates or political parties applies to deliberately deceptive AI campaign ads.
Those interested are urged to submit comments electronically via the commission’s website, the FEC said. The public comment period ends Oct. 16.
|
|
FTC
By Christopher Koopman and Neil Chilson
.....The Federal Trade Commission is laying the groundwork to stifle free speech. That’s the reality of its new investigation into OpenAI, the developer of the popular ChatGPT program. Many people know of the FTC’s consumer-protection and competition efforts, but the commission’s interest in “misinformation” deserves more attention. It opens the door to government control over the answers that programs like ChatGPT provide and, therefore, over the views that Americans hear and hold.
|
|
The Courts
By Alan Dershowitz
.....I was one of the lawyers involved in objections to Florida's presidential vote in 2000.
A margin of less than 600 ballots determined that Governor George W. Bush rather than Vice President Al Gore won the state and, thus, the electoral college vote.
I was convinced then and I am convinced now that this result was wrong.
No one was indicted, disbarred, disciplined or even much criticized for those efforts, yet here we stand today.
President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants has been charged with election fraud, conspiracy, racketeering and more, under a law designed to take down criminal organizations, known as the RICO Act.
Should Al Gore have been charged in 2000?
What about me?
|
|
By David Cole and Ben Wizner
.....Does the 1st Amendment shield Donald Trump from prosecution for conspiracy to obstruct the 2020 election results?
Trump’s lawyer has proclaimed the indictment “an attack on free speech and political advocacy.” He says Trump thought there was voter fraud, and “as a president, he’s entitled to speak on those issues.” And the indictment by special counsel Jack Smith does repeatedly cite Trump’s false public statements about voter fraud. Is Trump right to claim free speech as a defense?
As American Civil Liberties Union lawyers, we take this question seriously. No organization has done more to defend speech rights than the ACLU — sometimes to the dismay of our allies. We’ve defended Trump’s speech rights when he was sued for allegedly prompting a mob to beat up a protester. We criticized Twitter’s and Facebook’s decisions to de-platform Trump, and applauded when Trump was allowed back. We defended white supremacist Jason Kessler’s right to protest the removal of a Confederate memorial in Charlottesville, Va., supported the National Rifle Assn. in its 1st Amendment challenge to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s urging financial institutions to cut ties with the organization because of its “pro-gun” speech...
When it comes to free speech claims, we call them as we see them. But here, we don’t think the 1st Amendment bars Trump’s indictment. We pass no judgment on Trump’s ultimate guilt or innocence. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence, even as we believe that no person is above the law. But Trump’s 1st Amendment defense doesn’t cut it here.
|
|
Free Expression
By Eugene Volokh
.....The article is here; the Introduction:
Is the output of generative AI entitled to First Amendment protection? We're inclined to say yes. Even though current AI programs are of course not people and do not themselves have constitutional rights, their speech may potentially be protected because of the rights of the programs' creators. But beyond that, and likely more significantly, AI programs' speech should be protected because of the rights of their users—both the users' rights to listen and their rights to speak. In this short Article, we sketch the outlines of this analysis.
|
|
Nonprofits
By Luke Wachob
.....“We want them to get off the sidelines and to get back on the field.”
That’s the message Akilah Watkins, President and CEO of Independent Sector, is sending to the nonprofit community just days before National Nonprofit Day on August 17, after a recent survey of over 2,200 organizations revealed a steep decline in advocacy on public policy issues.
“Less than one-third of nonprofits have actively advocated for policy issues or lobbied on specific legislation over the past five years, down from nearly three-quarters of nonprofits in 2000,” noted a widely syndicated article by Alex Daniels of The Chronicle of Philanthropy.
Independent Sector, a coalition of nonprofits and grantmakers, wants to reverse that disturbing trend. They wish for nonprofits to reclaim their longtime role as advocates for their communities in Washington and state capitols. But they face a pair of familiar and formidable obstacles: the IRS and political leaders intent on controlling the conversation about their policy agendas.
|
|
The States
By Justin Much
.....A news release shared collectively by a half dozen organizations Tuesday states that a coalition of organizations have filed petitions with the Oregon State Elections Division taking aim at campaign finance reform.
Agencies involved, which include PCUN, Planned Parenthood and Oregon AFSCME, The Ebony Collective, Basic Rights Oregon and Unite Oregon Action, advocate more donor transparency in statewide and local elections...
The groups have circulated petitions titled “Transparent Elections for Grassroots Engagement,” calling for campaign donation limits of $2,000 for candidates running for statewide offices and $1,000 for those running in regionally defined offices, such as state senate, state representative and municipal races. Proponents contend that this will even the playing field between everyday voters and wealthy corporations.
Additionally, the petitions call for more transparency in donations, affording clarity about who is paying for ubiquitous political ads on the airwaves and flyers delivered via mail.
|
|
By Marissa Greene
.....The city’s banner policy, which was adopted in 1998, is a way for nonprofit organizations to place vertical banners in downtown Fort Worth to promote events that are open to the public or are of general interest to the community. During an Aug. 15 city council work session, Johnson and Melinda Ramos, deputy city attorney, presented recommendations to update the banner policy to council members, including a definition of what constitutes an “event” as well as defining allowed and prohibited usage of the program.
Early in the presentation, Johnson told the room that “there were a few issues with some applicants that came forward to utilize our downtown street banners when there was going to be a very small, relatively small event.”
Johnson didn’t specify which event he was referring to, although the presentation on the banner policy comes as the city currently faces a lawsuit from a North Texas nonprofit.
Metroplex Atheists is suing the city after its request to use the city’s banner program for an August event was denied. The group claims that the city said its application “was denied because the event was not of a ‘magnitude’ to qualify.”
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
