The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech October 13, 2023 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. Ed. note: The Daily Media Update will return Tuesday, Oct. 17. In the News Washington Examiner: Seventeen states still criminalize criticism of public officials By David Keating .....Criticizing public officials is practically a national pastime in America. Yet, in New Hampshire, the state with the motto of “Live Free or Die,” such a speaker risks criminal prosecution. Speakers in 16 other states do, too. New Hampshire’s criminal libel law makes intentionally and falsely disparaging another person a misdemeanor if the communication “will tend to expose any other living person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule.” The state twice charged Robert Frese for violating this law. Frese’s most recent arrest came after he posted critical online comments about a local police chief, prompting the police to file a criminal complaint. Although the police later dropped the charges, that’s almost beside the point: The fact that this “crime” exists at all harms the speech rights of anyone subject to it. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and its state chapter, Frese sued the state’s attorney general in federal court, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. After losing in the district and appellate courts, Frese petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. My organization, the Institute for Free Speech, filed an amicus brief urging the court to grant review. Unfortunately, the court recently elected not to hear the case. This is a missed opportunity to correct a longstanding wrong. The Atlantic: A Uniquely Terrible New DEI Policy By Conor Friedersdorf .....Attacks on faculty rights are frequent in academia, where professors’ words are now policed by illiberal administrators, state legislators, and students. I’ve reported on related controversies in American higher education for more than 20 years. But I’ve never seen a policy that threatens academic freedom or First Amendment rights on a greater scale than what is now unfolding in this country’s largest system of higher education: California’s community colleges… In [one] lawsuit, the Institute for Free Speech, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization, represents Daymon Johnson, a history professor. “Demands that faculty subscribe to and advance a particular creed or political ideology as a condition of maintaining their employment … are inconsistent with the mission of a public college,” the complaint states. Archive.today link Maine Wire: School Boards Directed to Prohibit Public Comment Calling Out Faculty and Staff in New Guidance from Maine School Management Association By Libby Palanza .....School board meetings have become a source of heated and highly contentious debate in recent years with parents and community members raising concerns over any number of issues. When speaking, some public commenters may veer into territory where they wish to reference the conduct of specific teachers or staff members. Depending on the district, however, doing so is not always permissible. Policies prohibiting this are likely to become more widespread in light of guidance from the Maine School Management Association (MSMA) recommending that school boards adopt rules blocking comments calling out particular employees. ... Brett R. Nolan, a senior attorney with the Institute for Free Speech — a nonprofit advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. — told Central Maine that allowing citizens to freely criticize government employees is an integral purpose of the First Amendment “because what they’re doing affects you, and you’re paying their salary.” Election Law Blog: Tenth Circuit, Following Supreme Court’s Decision in AFPF v. Bonta, Finds Aspect of Wyoming’s Campaign Finance Law Unconstitutional under the First Amendment By Rick Hasen .....What’s most significant in this decision by Judge Tymkovich for a unanimous 3-judge panel is the determination that Bonta makes it harder to sustain campaign finance disclosure laws (as I said in a NYT oped the day after the Supreme Court issued the decision was a likely consequence of Bonta—and to which I got a lot of pushback). Ed. note: ICYMI, read the press release about our case, Wyoming Gun Owners v. Gray, et al., here. The Courts Orlando Sentinel: Appeals court won’t block ruling in Hamburger Mary’s drag show case By News Service of Florida .....In a case filed by Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, a federal appeals court on Wednesday backed a ruling that temporarily blocks statewide a new law that would prevent children from attending drag shows. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, rejected a request by Gov. Ron DeSantis’ administration to modify a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell... In Wednesday’s majority opinion, Judges Adalberto Jordan and Robin Rosenbaum said Presnell ruled that the law was likely overbroad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Jordan and Rosenbaum pointed to legal precedents and said that in “other cases where a law has been found to be overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, we have affirmed injunctions preventing enforcement of a law or ordinance against nonparties as well as parties.” Des Moines Register: Twice arrested for comments to City Council, Newton man sues city under First Amendment By William Morris .....A speaker who was twice arrested and charged for criticizing police at a City Council meeting is now suing the city of Newton, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. Newton resident Noah Petersen repeatedly attempted to address the council in October 2022 about the city's police department after a highly-publicized incident in which a 19-year-old driver was arrested and wrongly accused of driving drunk. Petersen was charged in separate criminal cases with two counts of "disrupting a lawful assembly." A judge ultimately acquitted him of one charge and the city dismissed the other. Petersen in his suit accuses Mayor Michael Hanson and Police Chief Rob Burdess of First Amendment retaliation, prior restraint, wrongful arrest and selective enforcement, all in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Congress Roll Call: Drawing the line on AI-based deepfakes proves tricky for Congress By Gopal Ratnam .....A bipartisan group of lawmakers…proposed legislation last month that would ban the “distribution of materially deceptive AI-generated audio or visual media” about individuals seeking federal office. The legislation would allow people who are the subject of such fake ads to sue the person or an entity that is responsible for creating and distributing them, though not an online platform if the ad is placed there. Nor would it penalize radio, TV and print news media that publish stories about such ads as long as they clearly specify that the ad in question is fake or the use of such techniques is parody and satire… Civil rights groups, political consultants, free-speech advocates and lawmakers across the political spectrum have agreed that the use of AI-generated deceptive ads poses risks to the democratic process by misleading voters. The trouble, though, is figuring out where to draw the line on what constitutes deception, or how to enforce prohibitions. Even if deceptive ads can be banned in the United States, foreign adversaries could target U.S. voters, raising questions about the role of social media platforms in spreading these ads. FEC Public Citizen: Political Deepfakes Count as ‘Fraudulent Misrepresentation,’ Public Citizen Tells FEC .....The Federal Election Commission (FEC) should clarify in its regulations that political deepfakes are covered under the law against fraudulent misrepresentation, Public Citizen said in a comment submitted to the agency today. The States KATV: California repeals law that critics said trampled on doctors' free-speech rights By Cory Smith .....California has repealed a controversial law that critics said trampled on the free-speech rights of doctors. The repealed bill, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed in September 2022, designated the spread of COVID-19 misinformation as unprofessional conduct that could result in discipline from the state medical board… [O]pponents of the law, such as the Pacific Legal Foundation, said it “silences doctors and gives government a monopoly on scientific truth.” A group of doctors sued the state and won a preliminary injunction this winter after a federal district judge found the law to be “unconstitutionally vague.” The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented the doctors, contended the law violated their rights to free speech and due process. 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 The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected]