The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech March 20, 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]. In the News Federalist Society (Video): A Seat at the Sitting - March 2024 .....Ed. note: IFS Senior Attorney Brett Nolan spoke about Gonzalez v. Trevino on a panel previewing the Supreme Court's March docket . New from the Institute for Free Speech State Contribution Limits Report By Alec Greven .....This comprehensive report examines the limits that all 50 states place on individual contributions to campaigns for major elected offices. The report details the various limits states impose on political giving for individuals and offers a link to state information and the statutory language on the limits. The second part of the report ranks the states from best to worst in terms of the freedom of individuals to support the candidates of their choice, thereby enabling the reader to easily see which states have the most and least restrictive contribution limits. Key Oral Arguments Accessible Across the Nation .....The Supreme Court of the United States and U.S. Courts of Appeals provide online resources including background and docket information and high-quality livestreams or recordings of oral arguments. The following is a brief guide to accessing oral arguments from different courts across the country. For the most recent free political speech oral arguments, listen to the new Institute for Free Speech podcast, Free Speech Arguments, now on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Supreme Court Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Murthy v. Missouri and Government Urging Platforms to Restrict Speech By Eugene Volokh .....I watched with great interest [Monday]'s argument in Murthy v. Missouri, the former Missouri v. Biden. My sense was that most Justices were skeptical about the argument that the government violates the First Amendment simply by noncoercively urging and "substantial[ly] encourag[ing]" platforms to restrict speech. Among other things, as Justices Kavanaugh and Kagan suggested, the government likely ought to be free to, for instance, call up an editor to ask the editor not to run a story (or publish an op-ed) that the government thinks might interfere with some investigation, or be unfair, or simply be inaccurate, so long as this is understood as a request and not a coercive demand. I tentatively think that has to be right; and the challengers to the law didn't seem to have much of a response. On the other hand, the discussion (including Justice Kagan's example of the government asking platforms to remove pro-terrorist speech, even when it's constitutionally protected) crystallized one thing that's troubling me and I expect some others. SCOTUSblog (Video): Missouri Solicitor General Josh Divine on government influence on social media By Nate Mowry .....In this video, Nate Mowry interviews Missouri Solicitor General Josh Divine. Divine represents his state and several individual challengers, who argue that the federal government’s efforts to influence content moderation by social media platforms violates the First Amendment. SCOTUSblog: Texas city council member argues retaliatory arrest By Amy Howe .....The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in the case of a 76-year-old Texas woman, Sylvia Gonzalez, who was arrested on charges that she had violated a state law that prohibits tampering with government records. The charges against her were dropped, but Gonzalez brought a federal civil rights claim against three city officials, contending that she had been arrested in retaliation for her criticism of the city’s manager. A federal appeals court ruled that Gonzalez’s case could not go forward because she had not provided examples of others who had engaged in the same kind of conduct but had not engaged in protected speech and had not been arrested. Ed. note: Read our amicus brief in support of Petitioner here. The Hill: My city silenced me, but the Supreme Court will listen this week By Sylvia Gonzalez .....Speaking up in Castle Hills, Texas, can be costly. Residents who signed a petition to remove the city manager received visits from the police. Others faced bogus criminal charges. I spent a day in jail. The mayor, the police chief and a special investigator did their best to silence me. But on March 20, the Supreme Court will hear my case, Gonzalez v. Trevino, and give me a chance to speak without fear of retaliation. If I prevail, I can return home and continue my First Amendment lawsuit against the people who chased me out of office as the first Hispanic alderwoman in Castle Hills, an enclave-city within San Antonio, Texas. The Courts Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): "Black Lives Mat[t]er" + "Any Life" Drawing "Not Protected by the First Amendment" in First Grade By Eugene Volokh .....From B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal.), decided last month but just posted on Westlaw: Free Expression New York Times: University of California Could Bar Political Speech on Some Web Pages By Vimal Patel .....Israel’s bombing of Gaza is “genocidal,” according to the home page of the critical race and ethnic studies department at the University of California, Santa Cruz. Such a statement would be considered political and would be prohibited, according to a new proposal by the regents of the University of California. Under the proposal, academic departments would be barred from posting political statements on their home pages. And any political statement issued by a department — in any venue — would need to meet stricter guidelines. The regents are set to vote as early as Wednesday on the plan, which would apply to the U.C. system’s 10 schools, including Santa Santa Cruz, U.C.L.A. and Berkeley. The Free Press: Google’s Woke AI Wasn’t a Mistake. We Know. We Were There. By Francesca Block and Olivia Reingold .....“I walked around every day at work policing my own actions and language,” [former Google employee Shaun Maguire said.] “Back in 2016, I donated to Hillary Clinton’s campaign because I knew it would be public and knew it would get me points inside Google and insulate me when I inevitably got in trouble for doing something unintentionally wrong.” The States Pennsylvania Capital-Star: Pa. House committee advances campaign finance reform legislation By John Cole .....The state House State Government Committee advanced a pair of bills on Tuesday that would reform Pennsylvania’s campaign finance laws by expanding reporting requirements for independent expenditures and for candidates running for the state Legislature. House Bill 1472, which is sponsored by state Rep. Jared Solomon (D-Philadelphia), would amend the Pennsylvania election code to require the reporting of campaign finance reports from civic leagues and 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations that independently advocate for or against candidates for office. 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]