The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 17, 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 Fox News: I was thrown out of California public library for discussing if it’s fair for men to compete in women’s sports By Sophia Lorey .....Should men compete in women’s sports? That’s a central issue in our culture. One that demands honest dialogue and robust debate. Unfortunately, just saying "men competing in women’s sports" is enough to get you censored. Or as I found out, it’s also enough to get you thrown out of a public library. It’s common now for radical activists to shut down all debate on issues with which they disagree or dislike. To silence truth. This isn’t American, and it certainly isn’t constitutional. So with the legal help of Alliance Defending Freedom and the Institute for Free Speech, I joined other women’s advocates in filing a lawsuit against library officials for violating our First Amendment rights… This week, we secured a critical legal victory and reached a favorable settlement of our case with library officials. Supreme Court New York Times: At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display By Jodi Kantor .....“The mere impression of political opinion can be a problem, the ethics experts said. “It might be his spouse or someone else living in his home, but he shouldn’t have it in his yard as his message to the world,” said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia. This is “the equivalent of putting a ‘Stop the Steal’ sign in your yard, which is a problem if you’re deciding election-related cases,” she said. Interviews show that the justice’s wife, Martha-Ann Alito, had been in a dispute with another family on the block over an anti-Trump sign on their lawn, but given the timing and the starkness of the symbol, neighbors interpreted the inverted flag as a political statement by the couple. The longstanding ethics code for the lower courts, as well as the recent one adopted by the Supreme Court, stresses the need for judges to remain independent and avoid political statements or opinions on matters that could come before them. The court has also repeatedly warned its own employees against public displays of partisan views, according to guidelines circulated to the staff and reviewed by The Times. Displaying signs or bumper stickers is not permitted, according to the court’s internal rule book and a 2022 memo reiterating the ban on political activity. The Courts New York Times: Is There a Constitutional Right to Talk About Abortion? By Linda Greenhouse .....While there is not yet such a case on the Supreme Court’s docket, lower courts have been tightening a First Amendment noose around efforts by anti-abortion states to curb the flow of information about how to obtain legal abortion care across state lines. Federal District Courts in Indiana and Alabama both ruled this month that while states in the wake of Roe v. Wade’s demise can ban abortion, they cannot make it illegal to give abortion-related advice, including advice to minors seeking abortions without parental consent… In the abortion cases in Indiana, Idaho and Alabama that may yet find their way to the Supreme Court, the justices would face the acute dilemma of reconciling their fealty to the First Amendment with the profound anti-abortion sentiment the Dobbs majority opinion displayed. Courthouse News: Georgia judge tosses First Amendment suit over ex-congressman’s abortion-related judiciary campaign ads By Megan Butler .....A federal judge tossed a lawsuit Thursday from a candidate running for a spot on Georgia's Supreme Court who sought to block a state judicial committee from investigating him for talking about abortion issues during his campaign. U.S. District Judge Michael Brown dismissed the First Amendment complaint due to a lack of standing and denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as moot. John Barrow, a former Democratic congressman, filed the lawsuit just hours before his deadline to reply to a complaint received by Georgia’s Judicial Qualifications Commission that his campaign statements and ads violated state judicial ethics rules. During a hearing on Monday, Barrow argued he has standing because the commission's special committee on judicial election campaign intervention could issue a public statement critical of him and its threat of prosecution chills his First Amendment rights. Washington Post: To best protect freedom of speech, let’s speak to one another By Ro Khanna .....At a time of campus protests that echo what America saw during the Vietnam War, we must begin with the lessons of Kent State and Jackson State. Our nation must always stand for free speech, whether that speech is critical of Israel, of Hamas or of America. Criticism of the policies of a government in power is neither a rejection of patriotism nor an expression of bigotry. An open society like ours is designed for sharp disagreement and controversy. But the defense of dissent does not absolve us of the moral responsibility to call out protests when they devolve into toxic and vile threats against Jews or any other ethnic group. Prejudice is not a form of discussion. People United for Privacy: PUFP Letter on Privacy Impact of House Bills Targeting Foreign Election Interference .....People United for Privacy (PUFP) submits the following comments concerning the May 15, 2024 full Committee Mark-Up Session concerning the “American Donor Privacy and Foreign Funding Transparency Act” (H.R. 8293), “No Foreign Election Interference Act” (H.R. 8314), and “Foreign Grant Reporting Act” (H.R. 8290). PUFP previously wrote to the Committee in response to the Request for Information (RFI) on alleged “Political Activities of Tax-Exempt Organizations” and submitted comments for the related Oversight Subcommittee hearing concerning the “Growth of the Tax-Exempt Sector and the Impact on the American Political Landscape.” At that hearing, both Committee Chairman Smith and Subcommittee Chairman Schweikert emphasized the importance of Americans’ First Amendment right to join and support nonprofits privately. The inclusion of nonprofit donor privacy protections in Subcommittee Chairman Schweikert’s H.R. 8293 demonstrates a commitment to the First Amendment and an appreciation for the vital role of nonprofits in the American experiment. PDF Washington Post: How, exactly, is TikTok a threat to national security? By George F. Will .....Nowadays, a “trust us” response from government intensifies rather than allays suspicions. So, Congress should share much of what it has seen that supposedly justifies forcing divestiture or the banning of TikTok. And it should explain what intelligence sources and methods would be compromised by sharing everything. Regarding the postulated danger from TikTok siphoning up users’ data: What data? How is this dangerous? How is it different from what Facebook and others do? And cannot China get oceans of such data from private sellers of data? Now & Next: AI is No Reason to Limit Political Speech By Neil Chilson .....PEDA and ATEA are paternalistic bills that embody an elite distrust of Americans. They aim to "protect" people from technology that threatens the status quo. But democracy is about expanding speech, not restricting it from the political arena out of fear. I urge the committee to reject these misguided bills. It should instead focus its attention on bills like the PEAA Act, which could help inform congressional action to deal with AI impacts on elections. FEC FEC discusses proposed Directive regarding requests to redact contributor information, approves candidate’s eligibility for matching funds .....Proposed Directive Concerning Requests to Withhold, Redact, or Modify Contributors' Identifying Information The Commission discussed a proposed Directive that would adopt a process for the Commission to consider certain requests to withhold, redact, or modify contributors’ identifying information required to be obtained and reported under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act). The Directive would permit the Commission to grant exemptions to the Act’s reporting requirements where organizations or individual contributors demonstrate “a reasonable probability” that such disclosure “will subject [contributors] to threats, harassment, or reprisals from either Government officials or private parties.” The Commission was unable to approve the proposed Directive by the required four affirmative votes. The Commission voted to direct the Office of General Counsel to draft a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning such requests within 75 days. The Commission received eight comments in response to the proposed directive. Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum issued a Statement Urging Congress to Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to Eliminate the Public Disclosure of Contributors’ Street Names and Street Numbers and Commissioner Allen J. Dickerson issued a Statement on the Proposed Directive. Statement of Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum Urging Congress to Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act to Eliminate the Public Disclosure of Contributors’ Street Names and Street Numbers .....The advance of technology in the nearly five decades of the Commission’s history warrant Congress’s reconsideration of these disclosure requirements to better balance the everimportant transparency mission of this agency with Americans’ legitimate personal security concerns. In the 1970s, when the Act was promulgated and the Commission was born, the accessibility of contributor information to the general public looked very different than it does now. Today, armed with only an individual’s name, it takes less than a half dozen clicks on the Commission’s website to find that person’s mailing address on a disclosure report. By contrast, until relatively recently, someone would have to physically come down to the Commission’s office and browse through paper filings for the same information. As a practical matter, the threshold for disclosure has changed over the past decade. While the Act requires committees to report contributions over $200, the Act also requires conduit committees such as ActBlue and WinRed to report all contributions, even contributions as small as $1. These online platforms now facilitate and report hundreds of millions of contributions and, therefore, it is no longer the case that an individual must contribute more than $200 before the Commission publishes his or her name and address. Free Expression Dallas Express: VIDEO: Journalist ‘De-Banked’ Over Critical Reporting By Derek Fleming .....Independent journalist Christina Urso, who writes under the pseudonym Radix Verum, claims to have been “de-banked” by Bank of America following her production of a documentary that highlights the FBI’s involvement in a foiled plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. In a video posted on X, Urso alleged that the bank did not explain why it canceled her account. Others, including several January 6 defendants, have also had their accounts canceled, according to posts by Urso[.] CNN: News publishers sound alarm on Google’s new AI-infused search, warn of ‘catastrophic’ impacts By Oliver Darcy .....Google on Tuesday announced that it will infuse its ubiquitous search engine with its powerful artificial intelligence model, Gemini, drawing on the rapidly advancing technology to directly answer user queries at the top of results pages. “Google will do the Googling for you,” the company explained. In other words, users will soon no longer have to click on the links displayed in search results to find the information they are seeking. On its surface that might sound convenient, but for news publishers — many of whom are already struggling with steep traffic declines — the revamped search experience will likely cause an even further decrease in audience, potentially starving them of readers and revenue. Why spend time clicking on a link when Google has already scoured the internet and harvested the relevant information with its A.I.? “Google will take care of the legwork,” executives said. But a lot of that legwork, of course, comes in the form of human-written articles and expertise published across the internet on blogs and media outlets, all built on a foundation of advertising support. Google’s message was heard loud and clear. Within hours of the Mountain View announcement, the news industry began sounding the alarm. Candidates and Campaigns New York Times: David Trone Torched $60 Million of His Own Money. He’s Not the Only One. By Chris Cameron and Maggie Astor .....Representative David Trone, Democrat of Maryland who co-owns the largest wine retailer in the country, poured more than $60 million of his personal fortune into his Senate campaign in Maryland, according to campaign finance reports filed to the Federal Election Commission. He lost the Democratic primary this week to Angela Alsobrooks, a county executive whose campaign had spent about a tenth of that amount… It is a time-honored tradition in U.S. politics: wealthy people burning dizzying sums of money to fuel their political ambitions through long-shot candidacies, or — as in Mr. Trone’s case — campaigns with good odds that simply don’t end up working out. The States Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Court Overturns Littering Conviction for Leaving Bags with Messages on Neighbors' Lawns in Response to Their Political Signs By Eugene Volokh .....From State v. Dolcini, decided Monday by the Ohio Court of Appeals (opinion by Judge Jennifer Hensal, joined by Judges Scot Stevenson and Jill Flagg Lanzinger; for the factual backstory, see "85-year-old Hinckley man convicted twice for littering on Trump-supported neighbors" [WKYC, Phil Trexler & Marisa Saenz]): 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]