November 1, 2023

Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Justices weigh rules for when public officials can block critics on social media

By Amy Howe

.....The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled to define precisely when public officials who block their critics on their personal social media accounts are acting on behalf of the government and therefore can be held liable for violating the First Amendment. As Justice Neil Gorsuch put it, the justices had a “profusion of possible tests” before them, but it was not clear after over three hours of arguments which one they would choose.

New York Times: What Matters Most in the Supreme Court’s Upcoming Social Media Cases

By Jameel Jaffer

.....One striking feature of these cases is that they involve conflicts internal to free speech — not conflicts between free speech and other values, like equality or national security, but conflicts between the competing free speech claims of government, platforms and ordinary citizens. In resolving these conflicts, the court should remember that the First Amendment’s highest purpose — its “central meaning,” as Justice William Brennan put it nearly 60 years ago — is to protect the speech that’s necessary to democracy.

The Courts

WESH: Disney warns that if DeSantis wins lawsuit, others will be punished for ‘disfavored’ views

By Associated Press

.....If Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wins a federal lawsuit in which Disney claims its free speech rights were violated by the Republican leader, the company won’t be the last entity to be punished over supporting a “disfavored viewpoint,” Disney said in court papers on Monday.

The First Amendment protects the right of free speech even if it goes against government powers, Disney said in court documents asking a judge to reject DeSantis’ motion to dismiss the entertainment giant’s First Amendment lawsuit in Tallahassee.

Washington Examiner: Trump's DC judge won't accept ACLU amicus brief against gag order

By Kaelan Deese

.....The judge presiding over former President Donald Trump's criminal election interference case declined to accept an amicus brief from the American Civil Liberties Union that voiced opposition to a gag order imposed on the former president.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of the District Court for the District of Columbia declined to accept the amicus or "friend of the court" brief that would have favored Trump's defense against the limited gag order, which prevents certain inflammatory speech by Trump against specific prosecutors and possible witnesses in the 2020 election subversion case.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Texas attorney general’s lawsuit against Yelp poses serious threat to press freedom

By Gabe Rottman and Chris Young

.....Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is once again attempting to misuse his state’s consumer protection law to regulate an online platform’s editorial choices — this time as part of an effort to prevent Yelp from providing its users with information about the services offered by crisis pregnancy centers.

Though the case doesn’t involve a news organization, it could have implications for press freedom, specifically the freedom of journalists and news outlets to make editorial decisions without fear of government regulation or retaliation.

Congress

CNN: Mitch McConnell warns GOP senators they’ll face ‘incoming’ if they back Hawley bill to limit corporate giving in campaigns

By Manu Raju

.....Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell bluntly warned Republican senators in a private meeting not to sign on to a bill from Sen. Josh Hawley aimed at limiting corporate money bankrolling high-powered outside groups, telling them that many of them won their seats thanks to the powerful group the Kentucky Republican has long controlled.

According to multiple sources familiar with the Tuesday lunch meeting, McConnell warned GOP senators that they could face “incoming” from the “center-right” if they signed onto Hawley’s bill. He also read off a list of senators who won their races amid heavy financial support from the Senate Leadership Fund, an outside group tied to the GOP leader that spends big on TV ads in battleground Senate races. On that list of senators: Hawley himself, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Free Expression

Daily Collegian: The Canary Mission’s doxxing needs to stop

By Owen Ray

.....The Mission didn’t stop at creating profiles for student leaders. They doxxed anybody even remotely involved in the publication of the letter. One listed student was a member of the Pakistan Student’s Association, a club which had co-signed the PSC statement. They were indirectly involved at best, but their membership with a cultural club was enough for the Mission to brand them as a hateful anti-Semite.

Another student was a member of the South Asian Law Students Association (SALSA), which also co-signed the controversial letter. They were placed on the website for no reason besides their SALSA membership.

These two students are not alone. Many of the people profiled on the Canary Mission have not engaged in hate speech or engaged in anti-Semitism. A vast majority of the profiles are activists who have spoken out in favor of the people of Palestine; many student citations do not even quote the individual as ever publicly mentioning Israel or the Jewish people.

Ironically enough, the administrators of the website keep their identities private and little is known about the Mission’s creation or funding.

Newsweek: Free Speech Means Not Retaliating Against Employees Over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

By Nathan J. Robinson

.....It's true that employers are legally allowed to fire people for their social media posts. But freedom of speech doesn't just mean the government shouldn't throw you in jail for your speech. It should also mean that people can engage in a very broad range of political speech without having to fear for their jobs.

That means we should be wary of destroying people's livelihoods even for speech we are repelled by.

The States

Gillette News Record: Bills would add voter requirements, expand campaign donor reporting

By Hannah Shields, Wyoming Tribune Eagle

.....A bill draft forwarded by committee members, as written, would expand the definition of a [political action committee] to include “any group of two (2) or more persons that ... pools or otherwise jointly expends funds totaling in aggregate more than ($1,000).”

The proposed legislation would allow groups to report campaign expenditure or electioneering communication without registering as a PAC.

Gray pushed back on the bill and said it stirred major constitutional concern regarding political speech under the First Amendment.

“This bill ... essentially opens the door to a wave of uncertainty and overbred reporting requirements for individuals engaging in political speech,” Gray said.

He agreed that the current PAC definition needed work but did not believe this was the right way to do it.

“If we want to address this issue, maybe we need to go into the definition of a PAC and address it that way,” Gray said.

Stephen Klein, an attorney for the Wyoming Liberty Group, said there were “many problems” with campaign finance laws in Wyoming, including the state’s current definition of PAC, which he considered unconstitutional.

“For the purposes of this bill, it is another unconstitutional addition,” Klein said.

Sen. Eric Barlow, R-Gillette, suggested changing the definition of PAC to include independent expenditures from individuals, an amendment that received report from committee co-Chairman Rep. Jared Olsen, R-Cheyenne.