October 30, 2023

In the News

San Francisco Chronicle: Free speech group plans to appeal S.F. campaign finance law to U.S. Supreme Court

By Bob Egelko

.....San Francisco’s law requiring political ads to identify their top financial donors has survived another challenge in federal appeals court, but nine conservative judges argued in dissent that the law violates free speech. An attorney for opponents of the measure says he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

“We’re encouraged that nine judges agreed that the First Amendment protects San Franciscans from this misguided law,” Alan Gura, lawyer for the Institute for Free Speech, said Friday. The institute is a nonprofit that has challenged campaign finance regulations in other states.

Alternate link

Ed. note: The dissents begin on p.35 of the opinion.

Austin Journal: UT Austin Professor Lowery can continue his suit against UT officials

.....Senior attorney of the Institute for Free Speech, Del Kolde, expressed satisfaction with the Western District of Texas Court's ruling on Professor Richard Lowery's lawsuit against University of Texas (UT) officials. The court affirmed Professor Lowery's standing to sue and deemed his claim appropriate for consideration. The court also agreed that the alleged threats made by UT officials could reasonably deter someone from exercising their free speech rights. The ruling was issued by Senior United States District Judge David Alan Ezra on September 5th.

Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Must federal government permit “Trump too small” trademark?

By Ronald Mann

.....Wednesday’s argument in Vidal v. Elster is the third in a series of First Amendment challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act that bar registration of various kinds of scurrilous marks. In the first, Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that it violated the First Amendment to refuse registration for a mark disparaging Asian Americans; the second, Iancu v. Brunetti, held that the First Amendment invalidated a bar on immoral or scandalous marks (in that case, “FUCT”). At issue in the third part of the trilogy is a provision that bars any mark that “identif[ies] a particular living individual” without that person’s written consent. In this case, Steve Elster attempted to trademark the phrase “Trump too small,” to be used on T-shirts to convey a political message mocking former President Donald Trump, apparently drawn from a comment made by Sen. Marco Rubio in one of the 2016 presidential debates.

Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court Gets a Social-Media Test

By The Editorial Board

.....Some lower courts have divined in the First Amendment’s penumbra a right to follow politicians on social media. On Tuesday the Supreme Court will consider whether the Constitution bars public officials from blocking constituents on their personal accounts (O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed).

The Courts

Courthouse News: 11th Circuit sides with Miami Beach officials in dispute over removal of mural honoring police shooting victim

By Kayla Goggin

.....Miami Beach city officials did not violate the First Amendment when they removed a painting honoring the victim of a police shooting from a city-funded art show, a panel of the 11th Circuit ruled on Friday.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a decision handed down by a Florida federal judge last year dismissing the lawsuit filed by a group of artists and curators. U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke held that the removal of the artwork constituted “government speech,” which is not restricted under the First Amendment.

Racket News: Newsguard Case Highlights the Pentagon's Censorship End-Around

By Matt Taibbi

.....Monday, the independent website Consortium News filed suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Technologies. The complaint targeting both the government and a private media ratings service is an important one, putting the censorship-by-proxy system on trial.

Free Expression

Reason: How To Yell 'Fire' in a Crowded Theater

By Jeff Kosseff

.....But alleged misinformation is speech. While some speech undisputedly can be regulated, the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected a broad exception for false speech. Invoking the crowded theater will not magically create an avenue for unchecked censorship.

The concerns about false speech have driven many commentators and politicians to propose new laws that would penalize at least some types of false statements that have long received legal protection. For many of the same reasons that courts and legislatures have protected falsehoods for centuries, imposing broad new "misinformation" laws would be stifling, ripe for abuse, inefficient, and largely inconsistent with the U.S. legal system's approach to false speech.

Jonathan Turley: Eventbrite Bars Riley Gaines Promotion

.....We have previously discussed platforms like GoFundMe barring conservative groups and causes after cancel campaigns by activists to cut off financial support for opposing groups. The latest such controversy concerns Riley Gaines who was barred from using the ticketing company Eventbrite for an upcoming event on promoting biological women in sports.

As in the past, the free speech objections made to such censorship is not due to any affiliation or support for the underlying causes. Rather it is an attack on free speech values by platforms that should remain neutral on questions that divide us. These companies can facilitate national debates by allowing citizens to associate and speak on these issues.

People United for Privacy: Debunking Rolling Stone’s Attack on Charities in RFK Jr. Anti-Vax Article

By Luke Wachob

.....Americans have a First Amendment right to support causes they believe in privately. That’s true whether the media likes those causes or not.

Rolling Stone became the most recent outlet to rage against this constitutional principle in an article accusing American charities of “bankrolling” Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine advocacy. Unsurprisingly, it missed the mark.

The authors cherry-pick donations to specific organizations in order to attack fundamental privacy and free speech rights that protect all Americans. They misconstrue the role of “donor-advised funds” (DAFs) in assisting large donors with their gifts. And they blame charities and Republican justices for longstanding First Amendment protections for anonymous speech.

Let’s correct the record.

Candidates and Campaigns

Washington Post: Candidates, take this AI election pledge. Or 2024 might break us.

By Geoffrey A. Fowler

.....Experts have warned for years that AI will change our democracy by distorting reality. That future is already here. AI is being used to fabricate voices, fundraising emails and “deepfake” images of events that never occurred.

Ahead of the 2024 election, I’m writing this to urge elected officials, candidates and their supporters to pledge not to use AI to deceive voters. I’m not suggesting a ban, but rather calling for politicians to commit to some common values while our democracy adjusts to a world with AI.

Reuters: Influencer model infects US political fundraising

By Ben Winck

.....U.S. politicians’ fundraising efforts are looking more fit for TikTok than a functional government. Viral posts and email blasts have bolstered donations for outspoken lawmakers, emboldening some of them to go rogue and contributing to the chaos that gripped the election of the House of Representatives' speaker this week. The new way to create star power will continue to disrupt politics as it has Hollywood.

The States

News Times: CT Supreme Court could decide if blogger can hide IDs of commenters who allegedly defamed cop

By Jordan Nathaniel Fenster, CT Insider

.....Kevin Brookman does not see himself as a journalist, though he does say he practices journalism. In the 15 years since Brookman launched his blog about Hartford politics, he’s played a role in breaking some of the city’s biggest stories. 

“I don't really consider myself a journalist, but I guess some people do,” he said. “I don't know where you draw the line, what's journalism and what's not.”

Now, Brookman says, the state Supreme Court is being asked to determine if he is, indeed, a "journalist" and entitled to the same protections under state law, including safeguards on attempts to compel disclosure on certain sources and gathered information.