The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 14, 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]. Supreme Court Shreveport Times: Supreme Court schedules Louisiana Facebook case accusing Biden of censorship By Greg Hilburn .....Louisiana's and Missouri's lawsuit accusing government officials of colluding with social media companies to suppress conservative voices about the COVID pandemic, Hunter Biden's laptop and other issues will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18. The Courts Reason: Buffalo Cops Denied Qualified Immunity for Arresting Man Who Called Officer an 'Asshole' By Emma Camp .....Buffalo, New York, police arrested and cited R. Anthony Rupp in 2016 after he cursed at a police officer for nearly hitting two pedestrians. Now, after an already extensive legal battle, a federal appeals court has denied the officers qualified immunity, paving the way for a successful suit against the officers. On December 1st, 2016, Rupp and his wife were leaving a restaurant around 8:30 pm, when they noticed a car, driven by Buffalo police officer Todd McAlister, "rapidly approaching" a crosswalk without headlights or running lights. According to legal documents, McAlister stopped just short of hitting two pedestrians—about two feet from them. Law & Crime: Telling presidential candidates they should be disemboweled is a First Amendment right, says man facing trial for alleged text threats By Brandi Buchman .....A New Hampshire man accused of threatening to “impale” and “disembowel” political candidates over text message says most of his charges should be dropped because the alleged screeds weren’t “true” threats but protected speech under the First Amendment. Tyler Anderson, 30, was indicted on three counts of interstate threatening communication in December... Ahead of a breakfast meet-and-greet event on Dec. 11 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, prospective voters received a text from [candidate Vivek] Ramaswamy’s campaign inviting them to attend. The text featured a “reply to Stop” option. Instead of ignoring or “replying to Stop,” according to court records, Anderson responded: “Great! Another opportunity for me to blow [the Candidate’s] brains out!” In a separate message, he replied: “I’m going to kill everyone who attends and then f— their corpses.” AZ Central: Lawsuit challenging AZ voting rulebook says limits on drop box monitors are unconstitutional By Sasha Hupka .....A lawsuit challenging Arizona's new voting rulebook alleges its limitations on monitoring ballot drop boxes and polling locations are unconstitutional. The suit, which comes from the America First Policy Institute on behalf of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, is the most recent from conservatives challenging Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes over his Elections Procedures Manual… Their latest suit argues drop box monitors are protected by the First Amendment. It contends the new voting rulebook aims to "criminalize" their conduct. They note their organization is "interested in observing activities at drop boxes" and "conveying a message to others that the drop boxes are being watched and should be watched." "These activities — watching drop boxes, speaking to people at election sites, and photographing activity at election sites — all constitute forms of speech," the suit reads. Election Law Blog: Our Amicus Brief in United States v. Mackey: Lying About When, Where or How People Vote Violates Federal Law (18 USC 241) and Prosecution is Consistent with the First Amendment By Rick Hasen .....Protect Democracy and the Yale Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic filed this Second Circuit amicus brief (with me as client and co-counsel) in United States v. Mackey. Mackey was convicted “under 18 U.S.C. § 241 for conspiring “to use Twitter to trick American citizens into thinking they could vote by text and stay at home on Election Day—thereby suppressing and injuring those citizens’ right to vote.” Gov’t Br. 2. Mackey has argued that section 241 does not cover such a scheme and that the law is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it punishes too much protected speech. In our brief, we explain that the statute, properly construed, both bars lies about when, where or how people vote intended to deprive people of their right to vote and that limiting section 241 to such empirically verifiable false speech assures that the law does not violate the First Amendment. Free Expression Bloomberg Law ("Exclusive Jurisdiction"): New ABA Rule Is a Step Forward for Free Speech at Law Schools By David Lat .....On Feb. 5, the ABA House of Delegates passed a resolution adopting Standard 208, “Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression.” Standard 208 requires law schools, as a condition of accreditation, to “protect the rights of faculty, students and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations or protests.” It is, as noted in the ABA Journal, “the first accreditation standard to address free speech for the entire community within law schools”—not just for faculty, who were already covered by standards protecting academic freedom... Despite all its virtues, Standard 208 is not a panacea. Perhaps most importantly, it doesn’t address the significant social pressures on faculty and students to engage in self-censorship on controversial issues. “I’ve had a lot of students complain to me that they are reluctant to speak out in class—not because they’re afraid of discipline, but because they’re afraid their classmates will ostracize them,” [Professor Eugene] Volokh said. “But you can’t have a rule to stop that.” Independent Groups Politico: RFK Jr.'s PAC returned millions to a donor. Campaign experts say that’s highly unusual. By Brittany Gibson .....The super PAC supporting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. padded its war chest with millions of dollars in contributions from one of the best-known private security executives in the country, Gavin de Becker. And then it did something remarkable: it returned nearly all of the funds, making his contributions effectively a loan. The move shocked campaign finance watchdogs who said they’ve never seen such an arrangement before. De Becker’s contributions helped the PAC report a high fundraising total that can, in turn, be seen as a sign of legitimacy for the committee. All told, de Becker made $10 million in donations to the super PAC; $9.65 million of which was returned. “If someone gives that kind of money to a Super PAC, they’re expecting it to be used by the super PAC for political purposes. I’ve not ever heard of a situation of putting out millions of dollars to a super PAC to get them over a bridge and then to get the money refunded,” said Craig Holman, of the ethics watchdog group Public Citizen. The States OC Register: Los Angeles’ latest lawsuit against journalist Ben Camacho is an unconstitutional mess By Seth Stern .....The Supreme Court once called prior restraints — or government orders prohibiting the press from publishing -– the “most serious” of First Amendment violations. Well, the city of Los Angeles seems intent on proving the court wrong. It’s come up with an even more offensive way to trample on journalists’ constitutional rights. Not only does the city want a prior restraint barring journalist Ben Camacho from publishing pictures the city itself accidentally gave him, now it’s suing him to force him to pay the legal costs of the city’s mistake. It never even occurred to the Supreme Court that someone would have the chutzpah to try that one. Officials like Mayor Karen Bass and City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto must know the city’s claims are baseless and they’re essentially throwing money in the trash by pursuing them. The Supreme Court has said four times that, when the government inadvertently releases documents to the press, that’s the government’s problem, and it can’t stop the press from publishing what it released. Journalists, the court has reasoned, don’t work for the government, and it’s not their job to worry about what the government wants them not to publish. Dakota Scout: Doctored sample ballots targeted in proposed campaign rule By Joe Sneve .....Political mailers won’t be able to replicate a ballot in South Dakota. That’s if House Bill 1239 can clear the Legislature and earn Gov. Kristi Noem’s signature. The measure, which passed in the House of Representatives Tuesday, is a direct result of power brokers within the state GOP using images of a ballot to highlight choice candidates in the lead-up to the 2022 primary election. Supporters of the measure say it’s intended to address voter deception while opponents say it’s a violation of constitutionally protected political speech that’ll end up getting the state of South Dakota sued. Reuters: South Carolina court says NAACP program doesn't violate legal practice curbs By Sara Merken .....The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that the state's NAACP branch can train volunteers who are not lawyers to give limited legal advice to tenants facing eviction… The court last week approved the program on a provisional basis for three years, finding that properly vetted volunteers would not be engaging in the unauthorized practice of law... The South Carolina NAACP had sued the state's attorney general in a related federal lawsuit in March 2023, seeking to bar the state from enforcing unauthorized practice of law rules against its planned efforts. Applying the practice restrictions to its initiative would violate rights protected by the First Amendment, the group said. The NAACP dismissed its federal case following the state Supreme Court's ruling. 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]