March 12, 2024

In the News

Oregon Live: PSU professor’s push for injunction against UO after he was blocked from its equity Twitter account gets new life

By Maxine Bernstein 

.....The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has resurrected Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley’s push for a preliminary injunction against the University of Oregon after he says he was unconstitutionally blocked from seeing or commenting on tweets from the @OUEquity Twitter account.

In a 2-1 vote, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on Friday threw out an Oregon federal judge’s denial of Gilley’s motion for a preliminary injunction and sent the matter back to U.S. District Court.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Institute for Free Speech Urges Sixth Circuit to Protect Free Political Speech in the Form of Coordinated Political Party Expenditures

.....The Institute for Free Speech has filed an amicus brief in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to strike down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s (FECA) limits on coordinated expenditures between political party committees and their candidates.

The brief, written by Institute founder Bradley A. Smith and Senior Attorney Brett Nolan, explains that “FECA’s limits on coordinated party expenditures fight against a harm that either does not exist, or that is effectively managed by other more narrowly drawn rules.” In highlighting the imprecise tailoring of the rules, the brief draws on the experience of the states.

“When more than half the states manage to operate elections without restricting coordinated party expenditures and without giving rise to any relevant quid pro quo, it is hard to believe that the law is ‘necessary to prevent [the] anticipated harm,’” notes the brief. “The states’ experience in allowing political parties to support their own candidates without restriction leaves no doubt that the government’s fear is nothing more than ‘mere conjecture.’”

FEC

USA Today: AI deepfakes are part of the 2024 election. Will the federal government regulate them?

By Erin Mansfield

.....“A properly functioning FEC would’ve proactively moved to address this issue long ago,” [Public Citizen president Robert] Weissman said. “They did not.”

He said the agency “shouldn’t be dragged kicking and screaming.”

Sean Cooksey, the FEC chairman, hit back at Weissman’s comments.

“Public Citizen’s statement is typically long on outrage and short on substance,” Cooksey wrote in a statement he sent to USA TODAY. “Any suggestion that the FEC is not doing its job on the pending AI rulemaking petition is simply false. The Commission will continue to work through the regulatory review process, and I expect it will resolve the petition later this year.”

Washington Examiner: Marc Elias-tied group likely violated federal law paying Democratic candidates: Watchdog

By Gabe Kaminsky

.....A left-wing group linked to Democratic superlawyer Marc Elias appears to have violated federal law, a watchdog alleged in a complaint.

The complaint, which the conservative Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust filed on Monday with the Federal Election Commission, requests an immediate investigation into whether the American Mainstream Policy Leadership Institute “made illegal contributions to federal candidates.” It heavily cited a January Washington Examiner report detailing how AMPLI is a fellowship project at a newly-formed charity incorporated in Washington, D.C., by an Elias associate, that ensures repeat Democratic congressional hopefuls get paychecks between runs.

SEC

Thomson Reuters: Legal experts take opposing views on SEC’s climate disclosure rule and the First Amendment

By Henry Engler 

.....Debate has intensified over whether the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) newly released climate disclosure rules might be derailed by First Amendment legal challenges. The focus on the First Amendment comes after industry groups brought a lawsuit against California’s recent climate disclosure laws, arguing that the rules force companies to engage in “compelled speech” that is unconstitutional.

SEC chair Gary Gensler said in February that the regulator is taking account of court decisions over its past rulemaking in crafting its final regulation for climate disclosure. In particular, he noted a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that rejected the argument made by industry trade groups that the SEC’s stock buyback rule, established in May 2023, violated the First Amendment. The groups said the agency’s stock buyback rule, which required companies to report day-to-day share repurchase data once per quarter, violated the First Amendment by impermissibly compelling their speech.

Free Expression

National Review: RuPaul’s Anti–‘Book Ban’ Bookstore Pledges to Stop Selling ‘Hate-Filled Books’

By Abigail Anthony

.....A founder of the “all-inclusive” online bookstore Allstora, which launched last week with the promise to “carry all books,” admitted to removing titles and apologized for previously selling “harmful books.”

Online Speech Platforms

Politico: The Chinese government is using TikTok to meddle in elections, ODNI says

By Mallory Culhane

.....The Chinese government is using TikTok to expand its global influence operations to promote pro-China narratives and undermine U.S. democracy, according to a report released today from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence…

ODNI alleges that “TikTok accounts run by a PRC propaganda arm reportedly targeted candidates from both political parties during the U.S. midterm election cycle in 2022,” and that “China is demonstrating a higher degree of sophistication in its influence activity, including experimenting with generative AI.”

The report’s release comes as lawmakers are increasingly concerned about national security threats that TikTok poses. House lawmakers are expected to vote Wednesday on a bill that would force Beijing-based ByteDance to sell TikTok — or it would face a ban from U.S. app stores.

Washington Post (Technology 202): Trump and Biden are muddling the politics of a TikTok ban

By Cristiano Lima-Strong, Will Oremus and Drew Harwell

.....A House committee last week advanced a bipartisan measure to require that the video-sharing platform either be sold off or banned from the United States, the most threatening congressional attempt to date to either splinter TikTok from its China-based parent company or ban it entirely. Republican House leaders have indicated they plan to bring it to a floor vote this week, most likely Wednesday.

But in the past few days, President Biden and former president Donald Trump have each weighed in on the bill in ways that could confound the politics of the situation. Biden said Friday he would sign the measure into law if passed, after previously supporting alternative approaches. Meanwhile, Trump — who tried to ban TikTok as president — has surprised some by voicing opposition to a ban, something both critics and supporters of the legislation said it could accomplish. 

The States

Intelligencer: FDNY Searching for MAGA Firefighters Who Booed Letitia James

By Nia Prater

.....Last week, state Attorney General Letitia James was booed and heckled with pro-Trump chants as she gave remarks during an FDNY promotion ceremony. Now, the department is reportedly looking for the people who disrupted her speech…

Local and state Republican criticized the FDNY’s decision to investigate the protest. Councilmember Joann Ariola, who chairs the body’s Fire & Emergency Management Committee, said first responders “should not be held accountable for exercising their First Amendment rights.” Councilmember Inna Vernikov called the commissioner and department “political hacks and hypocrites.” During a recent appearance on Fox News, Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis suggested that the department shouldn’t have invited James in the first place, calling her a “polarizing figure.”