The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 9, 2024 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]. New from the Institute for Free Speech Institute for Free Speech Urges Supreme Court to Establish Bright-Line Rule to Protect Political Speech from Censorship .....The Institute for Free Speech has filed an amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri, formerly known as Missouri v. Biden, urging the Supreme Court to establish a clear, robust prohibition against government officials privately soliciting the removal or suppression of lawful political speech. The brief, written and filed by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorneys Charles “Chip” Miller and Brett Nolan, asks the Court to craft such a rule after Biden Administration officials flagged online content for removal and asked social media companies to deplatform users and downgrade certain speech it deemed “misinformation,” particularly speech related to discussions of vaccines and COVID-19. “The Constitution protects private actors from censorship—it does not protect the government from criticism," the brief explains. "If the First Amendment means anything, it must prevent this kind of interference in the marketplace of political ideas." The Courts National Review: Jury Orders Mark Steyn to Pay Michael Mann $1 Million for Defaming Him in Blog Post By Ryan Mills .....A Washington, D.C., jury on Thursday ordered conservative pundit Mark Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages to climate scientist Michael Mann, determining that he was defamed in a 2012 blog post on National Review’s website. The jury also ordered science writer Rand Simberg to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages for defaming him in a blog post on the website of the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mann also won $1 from each writer in compensatory damages from the six-person jury after a trial that started in mid-January and lasted three weeks. The jury’s decision for Mann could have important implications for the free-speech rights of critics to comment on controversial matters without fear of legal reprisals. In a statement before the jury’s verdict Simberg said the case was about “the ability of myself and others to speak freely about the most important issues of our day, whether climate change or another issue,” according to the Associated Press. “If others are faced with over a decade of litigation for giving their opinions, we will all suffer.” Fox News: My middle school silenced my free speech T-shirts about 'two genders.' I'm fighting back By Liam Morrison ..... My parents have always taught me to think for myself. My dad often makes comments and then questions me to see if I think they are true. He’ll ask, "Is that right?" or "Do you think that’s true?" He has done this since I was very little. He likes for me to come to my own conclusions. It’s natural for our family to have those conversations where we share our different thoughts and views. Shouldn’t that be natural and encouraged at school, too? But at my school, it’s very clear what the staff and administration want us to believe, even about controversial political issues. They don’t seem to want to hear different opinions. Shouldn’t they encourage us to have conversations and teach us how to discuss these ideas while respecting each other’s views? Instead, they just want us to think a certain way and go along with their point of view. I’m not sure why they act as though speaking up causes any trouble. Everyone seems worried that if somebody says what they think, somebody else is going to get upset. I didn’t go around pushing my opinion on anyone. All I did was wear a shirt. But even that was enough to upset school officials. NBC News: ACLU settles for $500k with a Tennessee city in fight over an anti-drag ordinance By The Associated Press .....A Tennessee city must pay $500,000 as part of a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups over an ordinance designed to ban drag performances from taking place on public property, attorneys announced Wednesday. The Media New York Post: Family of 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan accused of blackface sues Deadspin for defamation By Katherine Donlevy .....The family of the 9-year-old Kansas City Chiefs fan accused by Deadspin of wearing “blackface” filed a lawsuit Tuesday against the outlet — claiming it defamed and caused irreversible damage to the young football fan. Holden Armenta’s parents, Shannon and Raul, alleged that Deadspin intentionally published a defamatory article, exposing “the family to a barrage of hate, including death threats.” “The Article falsely alleged that [Holden] had ‘found a way to hate Black people and the Native Americans at the same time.’ It alleged that [Holden]’s parents, Shannon and Raul, ‘taught’ [Holden] ‘racism and hate’ at home,” the lawsuit, filed in Delaware, states. The States Boston Globe: A ruling that frees up local political discourse By The Editorial Board .....Elected city and town officials need to be free to tell voters what they would do if reelected. Unfortunately, some lawyers representing municipalities don’t seem to understand that. Attorney General Andrea Campbell has issued guidance that should settle, once and for all, the unfortunate legal opinions that have chilled free speech around municipal elections. In 2019, this board criticized a legal opinion issued by Newton’s city solicitor, which cautioned city councilors running for reelection not to give their positions publicly on projects pending before the council. The solicitor said the councilors were acting in a “quasi-judicial role” when approving projects and taking a public stance would prejudice those proceedings. Last November, a similar controversy arose in Waltham when the city solicitor wrote a memo warning incumbent city councilors not to discuss current issues pending before the council in political forums. Candidates said the ruling chilled their ability to communicate honestly with voters about important local issues. Archive.today link Courier Journal: Bill limiting DEI initiatives at Kentucky colleges amended to include free speech training By Hannah Pinski .....After an hour and a half of discussion, a bill limiting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in colleges and universities moved forward in the Kentucky legislature. Senate Bill 6, which prohibits higher education institutions from requiring students and faculty to "describe the attitude or actions in support of or in opposition to specific ideologies or beliefs" in order to receive admission, employment, promotions or graduation passed out of the House Education Committee on Thursday afternoon. Sen. Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, said at the committee meeting that the bill is to counter a trend he has seen with higher education institutions denying employment or promotion to professors and faculty who don't endorse "divisive concepts." Billy Penn: Former mayoral candidate Jeff Brown and super PAC sue Philly ethics board By Meir Rinde .....A bitter battle between former mayoral candidate Jeff Brown and the city’s Board of Ethics has heated up again, and taken a personal turn. The core legal issues were apparently settled months ago, when a judge ruled that a political action committee supporting Brown hadn’t broken campaign finance rules. The board and its executive director Shane Creamer withdrew an appeal last month and said they would seek changes in city regulations instead. But Brown, a millionaire supermarket magnate who came in fifth place in last May’s primary election, isn’t ready to accept the win and move on. He sued the board and Creamer this week, alleging they maliciously attacked him and harmed his reputation during the mayoral campaign. Also suing are For a Better Philadelphia, the super PAC that spent millions on TV ads supporting Brown, as well as an associated dark-money fundraising nonprofit and the chairperson of both groups, lawyer David Maser. Brown argues that Creamer and the board knew from the start that their legal theory for why the PAC broke the rules was invalid. Their fierce animosity to constitutionally protected dark-money political groups led them to file a frivolous lawsuit, embarrass Brown, and scheme to ensure his primary loss, they allege. 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]