September 8, 2023

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Institute for Free Speech Hails New Jersey Becoming 33rd State with an Anti-SLAPP Law

.....The Institute for Free Speech enthusiastically commends New Jersey lawmakers and Governor Phil Murphy for this week’s enactment of a new anti-SLAPP law that provides strong protections for the exercise of political speech rights.

With the new law, New Jersey joins 32 other states and the District of Columbia as jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP laws. According to the Institute, for the first time ever, a majority of the nation’s population is now covered by relatively strong anti-SLAPP laws, meaning with grades of “B” or better in the organization’s 50-state Anti-SLAPP Report Card. Nearly 80% of the U.S. population now lives in jurisdictions with anti-SLAPP laws.

Institute for Free Speech Welcomes First Amendment Fellow Nathan Ristuccia

.....The Institute for Free Speech is excited to announce that Nathan Ristuccia has joined the Institute as a First Amendment Fellow. Nathan comes to IFS after teaching history and Latin for six years at the middle-school, high-school, and university levels.

“A society that refuses to defend free speech is a society that condemns its citizens to permanent immaturity—to the comfortable laziness of adolescence,” Nathan said, “so I am thrilled to join the Institute in protecting First Amendment rights.”

Nathan is the author of Christianization and Commonwealth in Early Medieval Europe: A Ritual Interpretation (Oxford University Press, 2018), winner of the 2019 Brewer Prize from the American Society of Church History. He has written extensively on history, education, and political thought, with several articles forthcoming in law reviews over the next year.

Nathan earned his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center (graduating with the highest GPA in his class), his Ph.D. and M.M.S. in medieval studies from the University of Notre Dame, and his B.A. in classics from Princeton University. He previously clerked for the Hon. Victor J. Wolski at the United States Court of Federal Claims. Nathan lives with his wife and three young children in northern Virginia.

Comments on the Political Activities of Tax Exempt Organizations

By David Keating

.....On September 4, 2023, the Institute for Free Speech submitted comments to the House Ways and Means Committee on defects in nonprofit tax laws, nonprofit tax regulations, and IRS guidance that abridge the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Institute for Free Speech President and CEO David Keating authored the letter responding to the Committee’s request for information as it considers whether there is a “potential need for legislative action” in these areas. 

“The Internal Revenue Service knows little about First Amendment protections for free political speech. This is understandable, even if it’s inexcusable. The agency’s mission ‘is to provide America’s taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and to enforce the law with integrity and fairness to all.’ Regulating political speech is far afield of its mission,” said Keating to begin his recommendations.

Read a PDF of the comments here.

The Courts

Austin Monitor: Judge declares city campaign contribution blackout period unconstitutional

By Jo Clifton

.....U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman on Wednesday declared an Austin regulation on campaign fundraising unconstitutional.

The regulation prohibits candidates for City Council seats from seeking or accepting campaign contributions more than a year before an election. Pitman issued his ruling on a case brought by former candidate Jennifer Virden and one of her supporters, William Clark.

The rule was enacted after another judge struck down a city regulation prohibiting candidates from raising money more than six months before an election. In that case, then-Council Member Don Zimmerman sued the city to overturn the rule. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

In both cases, the judges ruled that the blackout periods were a violation of the First Amendment.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): May a Judge Sanction Lawyers by Requiring Them to Get Remedial Training from a Particular Ideological Organization?

By Eugene Volokh

.....This is one of many interesting free speech questions raised in Carter v. Transport Workers Union of Am. & Southwest Airlines Co. (N.D. Tex.). Let me discuss those questions in turn.

[1.] We begin with the employer's punishment of employee speech that led to the case in the first place:

Donor Privacy

Based Politics: A war on donor privacy is brewing

By Hannah Cox

.....Americans have a right to free speech, and that doesn’t go away when they choose to use their speech to advance political causes. In fact, we’d argue that standing up to the government is the time free speech is the most vital.

Throughout history, the US Constitution has been an outlier in protecting this right though, and the ongoing campaigns to target political opponents and shut down their speech prove just how necessary the First Amendment was and continues to be.

Lately these campaigns have been coming in the form of attacks on donor privacy—a long held and important extension of the First Amendment. Make no mistake, how one uses their money is a form of expression and thus protected by our free speech clauses—and this has been backed up by additional laws and the US Supreme Court on numerous occasions. 

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post: Google to require politicians to disclose use of AI in election ads

By Gerrit De Vynck

.....Google on Wednesday tweaked its political advertising policies to require politicians to disclose if they use any “synthetic” or artificial-intelligence-generated images or videos in their ads on the tech giant’s platforms.

The company already bans outright “deepfakes” that aim to deceive voters, but the new policy will require companies to disclose any use of the tech beyond minor edits such as adjusting color or contrast in an image. Politicians will have to fix a label to their ads warning people they include synthetic content, the company said.

Racket News: YouTube Hits Orf Again, as Censorship Grows Silent But Deadly

By Matt Taibbi

.....When you know you’re being censored, you can protest. But what to do about silent editorial punishment, dished without announcement, by tech platforms that appear to be learning fast how to avoid public outcry?

A year ago, this site had to throw a public fit to resolve a preposterous controversy involving videographer Matt Orfalea and YouTube. The issue centered around the above video, “‘Rigged’ Election Claims, Trump 2020 vs. Clinton 2016,” which despite total factual accuracy was cited under its “Elections Misinformation” policy. YouTube in July of last year demonetized Orf’s entire channel over his content, saying “we think it violates our violent criminal organizations policy.”

Oversight Board: Oversight Board announces Holocaust Denial case

.....Today, the Board is announcing a new case for consideration. As part of this, we are inviting people and organizations to submit public comments.