October 12, 2023

In the News

Courthouse News: Gun advocates’ attack on Wyoming donor disclosure law hits bullseye at 10th Circuit

By Amanda Pampuro

.....After winning a narrow injunction against a Wyoming election donor disclosure law, a gun rights group received affirmation and a remand for attorneys' fees from the 10th Circuit on Wednesday...

Wyoming Gun Owners’ attorney, Del Kolde at the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C., lauded the win.

“This is an important decision that implements the Supreme Court’s course correction on the meaning of ‘exacting scrutiny’ from Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta,” Kolde said via email, referring to the 2021 Supreme Court decision. “Campaign-finance disclosure regimes must be narrowly tailored or they risk being struck down.”

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Tenth Circuit Affirms Victory for Wyoming Gun Owners against Unconstitutionally Vague Donor Disclosure Law

.....Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that Wyoming’s electioneering-communications disclosure regime is unconstitutional. The ruling is a victory for free speech and association.

The case stemmed from Wyoming Gun Owners (WyGO) making multiple communications to its members and the public about the policy views of candidates for the 2020 election. Although these communications did not directly support the election or defeat of any candidate, the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office investigated WyGO’s political speech after receiving a complaint from a frequent opponent of the group’s policy views. Then-Deputy Secretary of State Karen Wheeler ultimately assessed a $500 fine against WyGO after determining that one of its radio ads “can only be reasonably interpreted as an appeal to vote” for the candidate whose views it praised and against the candidate it criticized.

In an important decision, the Tenth Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling that Wyoming’s disclosure requirements were not narrowly tailored and failed to provide sufficient guidance on which donors must be disclosed, making the law unconstitutional.

Online Speech Platforms

New York Times (Dealbook): The Israel-Gaza War Inflames Social Media

By Andrew Ross Sorkin, Ravi Mattu, Bernhard Warner, Sarah Kessler, Michael J. de la Merced, Lauren Hirsch and Ephrat Livni

.....Since taking over X, the social network once known as Twitter, Elon Musk has pledged to impose as few restraints on speech as possible.

But the Israel-Gaza war has driven a flood of misinformation and violent images and videos on the platform, testing the company’s commitment to those principles in the face of criticism from advertisers and hate-speech watchdogs. The stakes are growing for Musk after the European Commission’s top digital regulator warned him to clean up the platform or face steep consequences.

Free Expression

Jonathan Turley: Anti-Israel Statements After the Massacre Trigger Free Speech Fights in Higher Education

.....Universities and colleges across the country have become embroiled in a debate over free speech in the aftermath of the massacre of Israelis by Hamas terrorists this week. Various student groups have expressed support for Hamas or their cause while condemning Israel. Black Lives Matter (BLM) chapters have even shown the image below of one of the terrorists who paraglided into Israel where hundreds of civilians were murdered, including babies. Harvard has been a particular flashpoint over strident statements of condemnation of Israel immediately after the attack. The support has led to at least one firm rescinding an offer to a pro-Palestinian NYU law student as well as calls for universities to cut off support for student groups condemning Israel.

The States

Arizona Capitol Times: Attorney: special law does not give Lake right to make up facts about Richer

By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services

.....A special state law designed to promote political participation and debate does not give Kari Lake the right to make up facts about Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, promote them, and not have to answer for them, his attorney is arguing.

And Daniel Maynard said the law that Lake is trying to use to toss out the defamation lawsuit even before any evidence is heard is designed only to protect “the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.” But he said that provides no shelter for the one-time gubernatorial hopeful and 2024 U.S. Senate candidate to avoid being held financially liable for making false statements and the damages she caused to Richer and his family.

“There is no constitutional right to make defamatory statements with actual malice,” he said in his filings Monday with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman.

Daily Caller: ‘Pro-Censorship Agenda’: California Keeps Triggering Lawsuits Over Alleged First Amendment Violations

By Jason Cohen

.....California has faced several First Amendment challenges in response to multiple laws signed in late 2022.

The laws would require compliance from social media platforms and medical doctors with certain speech guidelines that could violate the First Amendment. Technology platforms and physicians have sued the state over the laws, and federal judges have issued temporary orders against two of them to block their enforcement.  

“Like their European counterparts, California lawmakers and Governor Newsom want the government to control the internet and online speech,” Chris Marchese, NetChoice’s Director of Litigation, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Unlike their European counterparts, California lawmakers and Governor Newsom are subject to the First Amendment in the United States. So long as lawmakers try to control what Americans can see, read, hear, create, and share online, they will run afoul of the First Amendment.”