April 8, 2024

In the News

Denver Gazette: Lawsuit alleges Colorado lawmakers suppressed free speech on transgender name change bill

By Nicole C. Brambila 

.....A group has filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado lawmakers, alleging they suppressed — during public hearings — the free speech of those opposed to a bill that would provide a specific avenue for transgender individuals convicted of felonies to legally change their name...

Filed on Thursday on behalf of Gays Against Groomers and the Rocky Mountain Women’s Network, the lawsuit from the Institute for Free Speech seeks to prohibit Colorado lawmakers from enforcing speaker restrictions against using “misgendering” and “deadnaming” language when referring to transgender individuals...

Endel “Del” Kolde, lead attorney for Gays Against Groomers and the Rocky Mountain Women’s Network, said speakers in support of the bill were permitted to provide testimony — but not his clients.

“We’re just asking for equal treatment,” Kolde said.

Legal History Blog: Knowles-Gardner on NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson

By Dan Ernst

.....Helen J. Knowles-Gardner, Institute for Free Speech, has posted The First Amendment to the Constitution, Associational Freedom, and the Future of the Country: Alabama’s Direct Attack on the Existence of the NAACP:

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Free Speech Arguments – Episode 6: U.S. v. Mackey

.....United States v. Douglass Mackey, argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2024…

Questions Presented:

1. Does 18 USC § 241 criminalize conspiring to deceive voters about how to vote, or is it limited to conspiracies involving coercion, threats or ballot-box fraud?

2. Does applying § 241 to Mackey’s tweeting of false voting memes violate his First Amendment free speech rights, or was the conspiracy’s disinformation “integral to criminal conduct” and thus unprotected speech?

The Courts

Idaho Statesman: A ‘chilling effect’ on Boise protests? Sierra Club files federal suit over city law

By Sarah Cutler

.....According to decades-old city code, using a megaphone at a protest is illegal, a violation of the city’s noise ordinance. For decades, that law went largely unenforced — until the Boise Police Department apparently began to crack down in recent years, advocates say…

The Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy organization, sued the city this week over its noise ordinance, as well as its requirement that groups get permission from the city before holding a meeting in a city park. In its filing on Tuesday in federal district court, the Sierra Club argued that the laws’ vagueness and uneven enforcement were unconstitutionally limiting protesters’ freedom of speech.

Political Parties

Election Law Blog: Search for: “Political Parties and Loser’s Consent in American Politics”

By Rick Hasen

.....Geoffrey Layman , Frances Lee, and Christina Wolbrecht have this new article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Abstract:

Lobbying

The Hill: Thousands of alleged lobbying violations languish at Justice Department

By Taylor Giorno

.....A new government report found thousands of reports of lobbying violations remain unresolved years after they were referred to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

Free Expression

The Hill: Democrats cry foul as anti-free speech allies turn against them

By Jonathan Turley

.....After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting of people with opposing views, politicians and academics are finding themselves the subjects of the very anti-free speech tactics that they helped foster.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration...

Last week, however, the left turned on Raskin. He was giving a lecture titled “Democracy, Autocracy and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century.” According to the Maryland Reporter, the protesters accused Raskin of being “complicit in genocide.” After efforts to resume his remarks, University of Maryland President Darryll Pines finally ended the event early.

Pines then pulled a Raskin. While mildly criticizing the students for their lack of “civility,” he defended their disruption of Raskin’s remarks as if a heckler’s veto were free speech. “What you saw play out actually was democracy and free speech and academic freedom,” he said. “From our perspective as a university, these are the difficult conversations that we should be having.”

Wall Street Journal: J.K. Rowling Is Right to Protest Hate-Speech Laws

By Jacob Mchangama

.....The law is part of a tsunami of new or expanded hate speech bans in open democracies. In a recent report analyzing the ongoing free speech recession across 22 open democracies, The Future of Free Speech, the think tank I lead, found that hate speech policies were the second most common form of free speech restrictions adopted between 2015 and 2022, after national security restrictions.

Many groups and activists who champion minority rights celebrate the growing trend toward limiting free speech as a sign of progress in the name of equality. But minorities should be deeply skeptical about restrictions on free speech. 

Independent Groups

Politico: Super PACs keep testing the limits of campaign finance law

By Jessica Piper

.....Super PACs keep pushing the boundaries of campaign finance law this cycle.

They’re using novel financial arrangements, like taking “bridge funding” in the form of undisclosed de facto loans from major donors or receiving ad revenue from a candidate’s podcast. They’re also continuing to take advantage of long standing loopholes in anti-coordination guidelines.

The willingness to push the boundaries suggests that U.S. politics has entered the Wild West campaign financing system that many observers predicted would come in the wake of the court’s weakening campaign finance laws.

It comes as super PACs are taking a more prominent role in campaigning. Total spending on independent expenditures so far this cycle is nearly 2.5 times what it was at this point in 2020. And because candidates are having more and more trouble with small-dollar fundraising, super PAC money could be even more important as the cycle continues.

The Hill: BP America asks iHeartMedia to restrict ads amid pro-Cruz super PAC contribution controversy

By Taylor Giorno

.....BP America has asked iHeartMedia to not place ads on podcasts that use ad revenue to fund political contributions.

The announcement follows revelations that the radio giant funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in ad revenue from Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s “Verdict” podcast to a pro-Cruz super PAC, Truth and Courage PAC.

iHeart Media has contributed $630,850 to Truth and Courage PAC since January, around one-third of the $2 million the super PAC reported raising this election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data.

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post: Elon Musk challenges Brazilian judge over order to block X accounts

By Niha Masih

.....Elon Musk said Sunday that X would defy an order by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes to block some accounts amid a growing confrontation between the social media company and the country’s judiciary over free speech and misinformation.

His stance prompted a response from Moraes, who announced an inquiry into Musk over potential obstruction of justice, the Associated Press reported.