June 20, 2024

In the News

Texas Scorecard: Analysis: State Speech Police Vote to Target Citizens

By Daniel Greer

.....By labeling social media posts as “political advertising” and adding the term “for consideration,” commissioners broadened their ability to launch enforcement measures against grassroots activists speaking out on a wide range of political activity when they fail to add disclaimers to the posts.

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, warned the commissioners, “something as trivial and common as a candidate offering supporters a free bumper sticker or campaign pin for reposting a message of support would appear to require a disclaimer. This would create a trap for unwary grassroots efforts or candidates.”

“Its terms are vague, leaving citizens to guess whether their conduct is included, which will cause many to choose silence on the most salient political issues of our day,” said Keating.

That most posters will fail to label their speech as political advertising (because it isn’t) appeared to be a foregone conclusion during the hearing, a sentiment shared by both the commissioners and the rule’s lone cheerleader.

The Dispatch: A Win for Political Speech at the Supreme Court

By Charles Miller

.....At first glance, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vidal v. Elster, also known as the “Trump Too Small” case, looks like a mess. Despite a unanimous ruling, there were four separate opinions positing different reasoning, some of which were joined only in certain parts by other justices...

This case, despite the superficially varied opinions, can be recast as a united singular proposition of political free speech law: One can’t corner the market on disparaging a named politician.   

Unfortunately, the case does not speak in such direct terms about political speech. Rather, it distorts through a clouded trademark lens.

New York Post: Manhattan mom booted from NYC parent education council sues for reinstatement: ‘Inappropriate and unconstitutional’

By Aneeta Bhole

.....Maud Maron of Manhattan’s Community Education Council 2 was ousted in a historic move by Banks on Friday under the city’s D-210 complaint process.

The regulation allows the city Department of Education to investigate CEC members and remove them from positions…

The controversial complaints process was up front and center in the Brooklyn federal court on Tuesday when Maron — alongside parent plaintiffs Deborah Alexander and Noah Harlan — argued its validity...

The trio is seeking an injunction against CEC-14, nominal damages of $17.91 per plaintiff and attorney fees, plus Maron’s reinstallment...

The suit claims that the DOE has imposed harsh consequences on individuals through the D-210 complaints.

“So long as you’re not issuing a true threat, we have very narrow definitions of unprotected speech,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer Alan Gura said in court.

Gura argued that the D210 complaint system was “vague and overbroad” and questioned the DOE’s removal of Maron.

“At the very least, if the court does not agree with us… it should prevent Chancellor Banks from filling [her] seat,” Gura added.

Supreme Court

NBC News:  Supreme Court rules for ex-council member in Texas arrested after criticizing city official

By Lawrence Hurley

.....The Supreme Court on Thursday revived a civil rights claim brought by a Texas woman who served on a small-town council and was arrested following her criticisms of a senior official.

The ruling gives Sylvia Gonzalez another chance to bring a retaliation claim, with the court sending the case back to a lower court for further proceedings.

The case focused on the scope of a 2019 Supreme Court ruling called Nieves v. Bartlett, which said plaintiffs generally cannot bring retaliation claims when police make a lawful arrest.

Congress

Daily Caller: Exclusive: Sens. Lee, Lummis Introduce Bill As They Accuse FCC Of Meddling In Elections

By Henry Rodgers

.....Republican Utah Sen. Mike Lee and Republican Wyoming Sen. Cynthia Lummis introduced legislation Tuesday that would halt the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) proposed regulations on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in campaign advertising, which were announced just months before the 2024 Presidential Election.

The Daily Caller first obtained a copy of the bill (embedded below), which is titled the Ending FCC Meddling in Our Elections Act. The legislation would specifically prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce any order issued as a result of the FCC’s proposal. The lawmakers say the notice was supported by strictly Democrat-appointed FCC Commissioners and would result in television and radio providers being required to issue an on-air disclosure every time an ad created with AI appears on their platforms.

“The FCC’s proposal to impose new regulations on political speech involving AI, just months before one of the most consequential elections in our history, represents a clear overstep of their regulatory authority,” Lee told the Caller before introducing the bill. “While I support transparency in the use of AI in campaign ads, I strongly oppose the idea of a Democrat-run federal agency single-handedly changing the rules of political engagement under the guise of regulation.”

The Courts

Bloomberg Law: Anti-Abortion Pregnancy Centers’ Vermont Ad Law Case Is Trimmed

By Jennifer Bennett

.....Anti-abortion pregnancy centers suing Vermont officials over a law limiting their advertising and provision of unlicensed medical services without professional regulation stated a plausible First Amendment claim, but the statute isn’t unconstitutionally vague.

One of the law’s provisions prohibits unfair and deceptive advertising by “limited-services pregnancy centers,” and the other extends Vermont’s medical practice standards to cover non-licensed healthcare providers at the centers if they also employ licensed providers. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates has standing to challenge the law, the US District Court for the District of Vermont said in an opinion docketed Monday.

Courthouse News: Ejected from meeting

.....A federal court in Nevada granted Las Vegas’ motion for summary judgment on a citizen’s First Amendment lawsuit following his ejection from a city council meeting without a vote. The citizen, who frequently speaks at meetings, was disruptively describing transgender prostitutes and suggesting that such sex workers wear tracking devices. Because his speech was irrelevant and profane, his removal was warranted.

Read the ruling here.

Online Speech Platforms

Mediaite: Report Revealing Ted Cruz’s Donor Info Deleted By Elon Musk’s Twitter

By Charlie Nash

.....A series of viral social media posts revealing the contents of a folder on Sen. Ted Cruz’s (R-TX) donors were removed by Elon Musk’s platform X on Tuesday.

Journalist Pablo Manriquez — who has recently contributed to The New Republic and Vanity Fair, among other outlets — shared the contents of a folder “full of briefing documents” on Cruz’s donors after it was left unattended, presumably by a staffer, in the Senate dining room.

The posts – which detailed Cruz’s purported wine and dine schedule with donors in Washington, D.C. and New York, and featured individual biographies of each of the donors – received thousands of likes before they were removed by Musk’s platform X, formerly known as Twitter, on Tuesday evening.

Nonprofits

Chronicle of Philanthropy: Nonprofits Are Taking a Stance on Gaza — and Paying the Price

By Sara Herschander

.....A donor pulling a longtime grant in response to a nonprofit executive’s politically-charged social media post. A family foundation forced to bring in an outside facilitator to mediate internal divisions over the war in Gaza. Risk-averse grant makers asking organizations to scrub language like “ceasefire” from their websites.

Those are just some of the battles brewing over language, funding, and free speech that have engulfed the progressive nonprofit world in recent months, as a growing number of foundations threaten to pull support from grantees over their stance on the war in Gaza. Caught in the middle are a host of small social-justice nonprofits that have been forced to cut staff and programming amid six-figure funding deficits, advocates say.

The States

Louisiana Illuminator: New Louisiana law seeks crackdown on civil disobedience in campus protests

By Piper Hutchinson

.....Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has enacted a law to exclude acts of civil disobedience from free speech protections on college campuses. 

Senate Bill 294 by Sen. Valarie Hodges, R-Denham Springs, was billed as a pro-free speech proposal. The bill was designed to “shore up protections” for campus speech, Hodges said 

“What we need on college campuses is education, not activists,” Hodges said.

Students and faculty opposed the bill because they fear it will criminalize free speech.

The new law specifically excludes any act that carries a criminal penalty from free speech protections, meaning campus free speech policies would no longer protect acts of civil disobedience...

Louisiana’s new law also excludes any “activities in which an individual or group is knowingly being monetarily funded or organized by any individual, corporation, business, or organization that has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization or foreign adversary by the United States Department of State” from free speech protections. 

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): California Judge Orders Removal of Reddit Criticism of Scientist/Consultant Who Publicly Criticized English Lucy Letby Murder Trial

By Eugene Volokh

.....This injunction, I think, is clearly unconstitutional, and is an example of a broader trend in which some California trial courts have used the harassment restraining order procedure system as an end run around the protections offered speakers in libel lawsuits. (See, e.g., Curcio v. Pels.) This case offers an extreme version of the problem, because it deals with such an injunction related to a matter of substantial public debate, and criticism of someone who has voluntarily involved herself in debate about an important court case—and is offering herself up as a consultant for other court cases (including to district attorneys).

Chicago Tribune: Taxpayer money should match Chicago campaign donations, alderman proposes

By Jake Sheridan

.....Chicago elections could soon be rewired by a new bucket of cash: taxpayer-funded matching money that multiplies small-dollar campaign contributions.

City Council candidates would get as much as $200,000 in public funds linked to small contributions if a new ordinance proposed by Ald. Matt Martin, 47th, passes. The legislation aims to dampen the oversized influence of wealthy donors, he said at a news conference Tuesday…

The public campaign financing plan would cost the city an estimated $9.5 million in every four-year election cycle, Martin said. Candidates would need to qualify and opt into the program and abide by a series of fundraising-restricting rules to receive the public money.