September 14, 2023

In the News

Courthouse News: Challenge to University of Oregon social media policies hits Ninth Circuit

By Alanna Madden

.....The issue of whether someone can sue a university for blocking them on social media reached the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday in an appeal seeking to overturn a lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the University of Oregon.

In August 2022, Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley sued the University of Oregon's former communications manager, Tova Stabin, for blocking him on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter. Gilley sued to address a situation that began when Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion’s account posted a “racism interrupter prompt” to address discriminatory remarks while facilitating constructive conversations.

CT Inside Investigator: Supreme Court hears oral arguments in campaign free speech case

By Katherine Revello

.....The Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral arguments on September 13 in a case involving free speech rights of candidates for political office who receive public funds.

In 2014, former state senator Joe Markley, and state senator Rob Sampson, both of whom were running for reelection, sent out a series of joint mailers that highlighted the differences between their political positions and those of former governor Dannel Malloy, who held office at the time.

In 2018, the State Elections and Enforcement Commission (SEEC) ordered Markley and Sampson to pay $2,000 and $5,000 in fines respectively for what it determined were violations of the state’s campaign finance laws.

The Courts

Newsweek: Infowars Host Wants Help From Supreme Court in Capitol Riot Case

By Katherine Fung

.....The Infowars host sentenced to prison this week for his role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot wants his appeal to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We believe that this is an important enough case to make it to the Supreme Court, and maybe that's where we prefer this case ends up, is at the Supreme Court because we believe it is that big of a free speech issue," right-wing host Owen Shroyer told viewers and listeners on Tuesday.

Shroyer, who never entered the Capitol building during the attack, was sentenced to 60 days in jail earlier in the day for "amping up" the mob with chants that furthered the riot at a sensitive moment. He has said that he plans to appeal the sentence and that if the appeal is denied, it would be almost as shocking as the sentence itself.

Courthouse News: Ninth Circuit rules against California ban on gun ads aimed at minors

By Edvard Pettersson

.....The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday there is no evidence that a California ban on firearm advertisements aimed at minors would achieve its purported goal of reducing illegal gun use and violence among young people.

A three-judge panel of the federal appellate court on Wednesday overruled a lower court judge who last year had declined to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute in a lawsuit brought by Junior Sports Magazine and Second Amendment advocates.

Since California allows youngsters to use firearms under adult supervision, such as for hunting and target practice, the case was about whether the state can ban a truthful advertisement about firearms used legally by adults and minors only because the ad “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote.

Washington Examiner: Virginia parents take critical race theory lawsuit against school board to higher court

By Breccan F. Thies

.....Parents suing their Virginia school district for forcing their children to learn critical race theory took their case to the appeals court Tuesday, alleging a slew of First Amendment violations.

Five families of Albemarle County Public Schools began their lawsuit in late 2021 after their children were subjected to a critical race theory pilot program that the district intended to be "woven through in all of the classes in Albemarle County."

The "anti-racism" policy, which is ongoing in the county, is "racist at its core," the lawsuit alleges, and teaches children "the color of your skin determines what you can achieve in life, your privilege," Alliance Defending Freedom Director of the Center for Parental Rights and Senior Counsel Kate Anderson, whose organization is representing the families, told the Washington Examiner.

Congress

Washington Post: Tech leaders including Musk, Zuckerberg call for government action on AI

By Cat Zakrzewski, Cristiano Lima and David DiMolfetta

.....Some of the most powerful tech leaders in the world — including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg — traveled to Capitol Hill for a meeting on artificial intelligence, where they expressed unanimous agreement that the government needs to intervene to avert the potential pitfalls of the evolving technology.

But as the six-hour session wore on Wednesday, there was little apparent consensus about what a congressional framework should look like to govern AI, as companies forge ahead amid a tense industry arms race.

The Hill: Here’s how to stop government end-runs around the First Amendment

By Nadine Strossen and Joe Cohn

.....House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) just released yet another batch in a series of emails revealing a disturbing pattern of pressure by White House officials on Facebook and Instagram to suppress constitutionally protected speech.

The First Amendment bars government officials from directly censoring the targeted speech, but it equally bars them from indirect censorship by deputizing social media companies to carry out their censorship agenda. 

The released emails underscore the need for legislation that requires government actors to be transparent about their requests to social media platforms. 

Free Expression

Racket News: On Missouri v. Biden and "The New Abnormal": Interview With Dr. Aaron Kheriaty

By Matt Taibbi

.....As noted over the weekend, the 5th Circuit Court handed down an important ruling in Missouri v. Biden last week, verifying that the White House and the FBI likely engaged in coercion of social media platforms “in violation of the First Amendment,” but excusing other state defendants and their partners from an earlier injunction to stop flagging content. A quick poll of people close to the case suggests uncertainty over what the ruling means, as its ambiguity may tempt the Biden administration to accept a loss, or wait until the related O’Handley v. Weber and Twitter case that’s already before the Supreme Court is resolved. Others however seem confident the ruling will be appealed to the upper court by the administration, which won’t want such a stern rebuke of the White House left unchallenged (“I’m sure they’re thinking, ‘This aggression will not stand, man,’” joked one lawyer).

Wednesday, I asked [one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Aaron] Kheriaty his thoughts: