June 5, 2024

In the News

National Review: In Memory of Justice

By Andrew C. McCarthy

.....As Bragg played peekaboo regarding his enforcement of federal campaign law, Merchan ensured that actual federal law would not intrude. He denied Trump’s defense the right to call former FEC commissioner Bradley Smith, who would have explained that (a) the NDAs were not campaign expenditures, and (b) even if the Stormy NDA on which the business-records charges were based had been a campaign expenditure, there would have been no reporting obligation until after the election. That is to say, Bragg’s fairy tale that Trump stole the 2016 election by skirting FECA reporting requirements was utter fiction, in addition to being legal nonsense.

RochesterFirst.com: ‘Why are we having protests near schools?:’ Brighton residents call for protest restrictions

By Oran Spitzer

.....“There is a legitimate reason sometimes for protesting near a public school,” said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech “any regulation that’s drafted has to be sensitive to the right for people to speak out.” …

Keating says the town has to be careful especially when it comes to enforcement, and being fair to both sides of any issue.

The Mercury News: Hysteria over misinformation fuels California bill to dox influencers

By Tiffany Donnelly

.....One of the few politically unifying events of the past year was the shared response to then-presidential candidate Nikki Haley’s plan to abolish anonymity on social media. The idea was deservedly lambasted by those on the left, right, and center. For one brief, shining moment, sanity prevailed. Americans, in almost perfect unison, defended anonymous speech.

But one California lawmaker appears to like Haley’s idea and introduced a bill to implement much of it. Now, two committees already have approved it.

State Senator Steve Padilla’s SB 1228 forces social media platforms to seek verification of the names, telephone numbers and email addresses of “influential” users [and requires platforms to ask for the] government-issued IDs of “highly influential” users...

Justifying the anti-free speech crusade, Padilla blamed “(f)oreign adversaries (who) hope to harness new and powerful technology to misinform and divide America this election cycle.” With domestic friends like these, who needs foreign enemies?

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Letter to House Leadership on the American Donor Privacy and Foreign Funding Transparency Act

.....On June 4, 2024, the Institute for Free Speech sent a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sharing concerns about the unprecedented impact of Section 2 of H.R. 8293 (the “American Donor Privacy and Foreign Funding Transparency Act”) on America’s First Amendment rights.

Read the PDF of the letter here.

Supreme Court

Politico: X Corp. asks Supreme Court to review process that led Jack Smith to obtain Trump Twitter files

By Kyle Cheney

.....Last year, federal courts in Washington, D.C. forced Elon Musk’s X Corp. to fork over reams of data from Donald Trump’s account to special counsel Jack Smith without telling Trump and giving him a chance to intervene.

Now the company is urging the Supreme Court to prevent such a scenario from unfolding again, a demand that could radically alter the way criminal investigators deploy secret search warrants and subpoenas for sensitive information.

The Courts

Fox News: Trump attorneys request Merchan lift gag order ahead of presidential debate, following end of trial

By Brooke Singman

.....Trump defense attorneys are requesting Judge Juan Merchan terminate the gag order restricting former President Trump from speaking about witnesses and the case now that the trial has concluded, citing the 2024 presidential election and the first debate against President Biden later this month, as well as the First Amendment rights of the former president and his supporters, Fox News Digital has learned. 

Fox News Digital obtained a letter Trump defense attorney Todd Blanche sent to Merchan Tuesday. 

Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly: ‘Passive enforcement’ policy valid under First Amendment

.....It was not a First Amendment violation for the state to charge a Rhode Island dentist with violating an emergency COVID-19 regulation after he announced to the media that he would not comply with the regulation’s vaccination requirement, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has found.

Daily Montanan: Ninth Circuit appears skeptical of Montana’s drag ban

By Darrell Ehrlick

.....A three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals wrestled on Tuesday with how Montana’s “drag ban law,” currently on hold from a federal judge, doesn’t violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, protecting free speech and viewpoints.

“Do you think that every word of this law is constitutional?” asked Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson.

Montana Assistant Attorney General Michael Russell, who defended House Bill 359 before the court in Portland, Oregon, said he believed so, and that Montana has a compelling interest in protecting children against “conduct aimed at disrupting childhood education.”

Free Expression

New York Times: When Anti-Fur Protesters Are at the Front Door

By Jessica Testa and Vanessa Friedman

.....A new frontier has opened in fashion’s fur wars, as protesters targeted the homes of more than a dozen employees of Marc Jacobs in recent months, using signs, noisemakers and fake blood in an effort to force the designer to officially renounce the use of fur in his collections…

Michael Ariano, the global head of public relations for Marc Jacobs, said he was followed down the street by a shouting group of protesters, his neighbors were harassed, and slogans such as “Michael Ariano is a Murderer” were written in chalk on the ground in front of his apartment.

College Fix: For first time in 50 years, Stanford faculty approve free speech statement

By Jennifer Kabbany

.....Stanford University scholars recently recommitted themselves to the principles of free speech and freedom of expression in a new statement that updates, reaffirms and complements a Statement on Academic Freedom first passed 50 years ago, in 1974, according to the Stanford Report.

The move comes thanks in part to the work of an Ad Hoc Committee on University Speech, formed last year to address several free speech and academic freedom controversies at the school, including a “Protected Identity Harm” reporting system deemed Orwellian by many observers and a 13-page “Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative” discouraging the use of more than 125 mostly innocuous words, including “American.”

Candidates and Campaigns

NOTUS: How a Drop in Small-Dollar Donations Is Shaking Up Both Parties

By Alex Roarty, Maggie Severns, and Nuha Dolby

.....In a stark reversal from recent political history, both parties have seen a significant decline this election cycle in the small-dollar contributions they harvest via text and email, largely from rank-and-file voters of modest means. Gone are the days when any candidate could expect to rake in small donations, according to Republican and Democratic digital strategists. Instead, only the smartest campaigns — and the perennial guests on Fox News — see the type of cash influx that was routine five years ago…

The exception is the candidates who excite the base and major news events. Former President Donald Trump reportedly received a flood of small-dollar donations after a New York jury convicted him on 34 counts last week. On the right, Jim Jordan and Marjorie Taylor Greene have seen their donations surge as they morphed into bona fide cable news celebrities.

The States

Washington Post: New York considers regulating what children see in social media feeds

By Carolyn Thompson, AP

.....New York lawmakers on Tuesday said they were finalizing legislation that would allow parents to block their children from getting social media posts curated by a platform’s algorithm, a move to rein in feeds that critics argue keep young users glued to their screens…

“[T]his bill is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment by requiring websites to censor the ability of New Yorkers to read articles or make statements online, by blocking default access to websites without providing proof of ID and age, and by denying the editorial rights of webpages to display, organize, and promote content how they want,” Carl Szabo, NetChoice’s vice president and general counsel, said in an emailed statement.