The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech June 27, 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 Reason: A Government Veto on Speech at the Supreme Court By Thomas W. Hazlett .....The evidence in Murthy shows that the U.S. government actively monitors online discussions, targets speech that breaks no laws, and then aggressively requests that the speech's distribution be reduced or labeled as dubious or false... The Institute for Free Speech recommends a clarifying bright-line rule: "The government violates the First Amendment whenever it requests the removal of lawful political speech. There is no need to determine whether the request is 'coercive.'" Supreme Court SCOTUSblog: Justices side with Biden over government’s influence on social media content moderation By Amy Howe .....Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies. Justice Samuel Alito dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Suggesting that the case could be “one of the most important free speech cases to reach” the Supreme Court “in years,” Alito would have ruled both that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their lawsuit and that “the White House coerced Facebook into censoring” at least one plaintiff’s speech. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): What Does Murthy v. Missouri, Today's Government/Social Media Case, Tell Us About First Amendment Law? By Eugene Volokh .....[W]e're really left learning very little new about First Amendment law here. In particular, -We don't know much more than before about when government pressure becomes unconstitutionally coercive. There are precedents on this; see this post, and of course NRA v. Vullo; but Murthy just doesn't add to these precedents. The dissenters (Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch)—whose answers as to the three standing questions were different than the majority's—considered this question, and concluded that the government did indeed unconstitutionally pressure social media platforms. But the majority didn't discuss the matter. -We don't know whether the First Amendment forbids even noncoercive government "entangle[ment]" in platforms', bookstores', newspapers', etc. "decision-making processes," or perhaps other forms of "significant[] encourage[ment]" of those entities' actions. Election Law Blog: Supreme Court on 6-3 Vote Splitting Conservative and Liberal Justices Makes It Easy to Give Gifts to State and Local Officials to Thank Them for Their Official Acts; Conservative Majority Relies on Legislative History in Part By Rick Hasen .....I’ve been following Snyder v. United States closely, not only because I am interested in bribery and illegal gratuities law but also because I based my Legislation course final exam on the case. To me, it presents a fascinating and close question, and I’m not sure how I would have voted had I been asked what to do. Both the text and legislative history arguments can point in either direction. It is notable, however, that the conservative majority that usually rejects legislative history as unreliable relies on legislative history here to describe the purpose of an amendment to the statute. The Courts Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Allowing "Black Lives Matter" Signs in Classrooms But Forbidding "All Lives Matter"/"Blue Lives Matter" Might Violate First Amendment By Eugene Volokh .....In Cajune v. Indep. School. Dist. 194, decided today by the Eighth Circuit, plaintiffs sued to challenge the School District's permission for some teachers to put up Black Lives Matter posters in classrooms (but not for members of the public to display other posters, such as All Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter posters). The court, in an opinion by Judge Raymond Gruender, joined by Judges Bobby Shepherd and Steven Grasz, held that the plaintiffs stated a First Amendment claim: Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the government was allowing private speech (which means the government generally can't discriminate based on viewpoint), rather than engage in government speech (where the government can select the viewpoints it conveys): Free Expression ABA Journal: Law students support free speech but want LSAT and bar exams gone, new survey says By Julianne Hill .....The poll was conducted by Inquire, a research and data consulting company, which surveyed 232 law students across dozens of ABA-accredited law schools from April 25 to May 25. It found that 95% say the First Amendment is not outdated and has to be respected and followed. Half of the respondents reported that they were often intimidated by classmates, and 34% claimed that they were intimidated by professors with differing opinions. The majority of students—62%—think that the First Amendment should be interpreted to extend even to speech “considered offensive or hateful by some.” “Though law students overall support free speech, there is a noticeable undercurrent of censorship that America’s law schools must address,” said Lauren Noble, founder and executive director of the Buckley Institute, in a June 20 press release. The Media The Free Press: Catherine Herridge: Protecting Sources Is a Hill Worth Dying On By Catherine Herridge .....Any investigative reporter will tell you the same thing: forcing a journalist to disclose confidential sources will have a crippling effect on effective investigative journalism in this country. The First Amendment provides protections for the press because an informed electorate is essential for robust debate and a strong democracy. But what happens when you find yourself dragged into a lawsuit, ordered to divulge your sources, and held in contempt when you refuse? That’s the situation I find myself in now. Yet I know just how important it is that I stand by my promise to keep my sources confidential—not just for me but for all journalists. Washington Post: A new measure of Americans’ deep distrust of the media By Philip Bump .....Americans simply don’t trust the media, particularly when it comes to politics. Swing-state polling from The Post and the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University found that only 3 in 10 residents of six of the most important states in this year’s presidential election trust that the media will fairly and accurately report political news. Seven in 10 indicated that they had not too much trust in that occurring — or that they had no trust at all. As you might expect, this lack of trust was more pronounced on the political right. Only 13 percent of White evangelical Protestants in those states, for example, indicated that they had trust in the media to fairly report on politics. The other 87 percent didn’t. Those who indicated that podcasts or X (once Twitter) were a main source they used for news were much more likely than swing-state voters overall to indicate skepticism about political coverage. Independent Groups Slate: A Democratic Super PAC’s New Trump Ad Might Be Borderline Criminal By Richard L. Hasen .....Here’s something to scramble your brain: A progressive super PAC in Pennsylvania put out an advertisement trying to suppress mail-in voting by MAGA Republicans, and the Trump campaign responded by saying that the super PAC was violating the same law that Trump has been charged with violating in his federal election interference case. To boot, Trump’s lawyers said in their letter that the super PAC’s actions were just like those of Douglass Mackey, a Trump supporter that the Department of Justice successfully prosecuted for falsely telling Black supporters of Hillary Clinton in 2016 that they could vote for her by text. In the end, the super PAC’s actions appear despicable, but it is much more questionable whether the advertisement crossed a legal line. The 30-second advertisement in question opens with words onscreen: “MAGA PATRIOTS: LISTEN TO OUR PRESIDENT.” It then turns to a series of statements in which Donald Trump disparages the safety and security of voting by mail, claiming fraud and corruption. It ends with the words: “Stand strong with PRESIDENT TRUMP AGAINST MAIL-IN VOTING.” A disclaimer on the bottom explains that the ad was paid for by “Pennsylvania Values,” and was not authorized by any candidate or committee. The States Pensacola News-Journal: Advertising stunt or protected political speech? Lawsuit over Sam Parker cutout goes to judge By Tom McLaughlin .....A judge has been asked to determine whether a marketing ploy deployed by Gulf Coast Gun and Outdoors owner Chris Smith utilizing the name and likeness of Santa Rosa County Commission Chairman Sam Parker qualifies as protected political speech or is simply an advertising stunt infringing upon Parker's rights. Parker filed suit against Smith in December alleging the unauthorized use and publication of his name and likeness. Since April of 2020, it states, Smith has used the name and likeness of Parker as part of a "taxation is theft" sales promotion in which Gulf Coast Gun and Outdoors has covered the sales taxes of its customers on purchases made at the store. Circuit Court Judge J. Scott Duncan presided Tuesday over a hearing on a motion from Smith's attorney, Anthony Sabatini, to dismiss the case. After hearing presentations from Sabatini and Erick Mead, Parker's legal counsel, Duncan said he would rule on the motion within the next couple of weeks. NC Newsline: Republican-led NC House overrides three gubernatorial vetoes By Clayton Henkel .....The final veto override of the day was saved for one of the most controversial bills of the short session: House Bill 237. This measure (“Various Criminal and Election Law Changes”) was initially a proposal that sought to regulate the wearing of masks in public. Later, however, it was revised to include language that will dramatically change the state’s campaign finance laws. Governor Cooper said in his veto message that the bill would keep voters in the dark while allowing “anonymous out-of-state billionaires to flood North Carolina with campaign contributions to rescue extreme right-wing candidates that Republicans now fear will lose.” Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston) said that section of the bill merely “helps level the playing field.” But Rep. Maria Cervania (D-Wake) argued the mask provision was leading to people with serious health conditions to be harassed. Courthouse News: North Carolina legislature passes antisemitism definition measure By Sydney Haulenbeek .....The North Carolina legislature passed a bill Wednesday night codifying the definition of antisemitism in state law, an action which activists claim will silence speech, but which lawmakers argue is in response to targeted discrimination. The bill, called the Shalom Act, adopts the the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which defines the term as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” ... The alliance cites several examples of antisemitism, such as targeting the state of Israel, comparing Israeli policy to Nazism, making stereotypical accusations and denying the Holocaust. The measure faced opposition from the North Carolina American Civil Liberties Union, who said that — despite the bill not criminalizing antisemitic speech — it would still silence political speech, particularly concerning the Israel-Hamas war. Florida Today: New laws that involve the First Amendment are soon taking effect in Florida By Douglas Soule .....A number of the bills that passed during the 2024 Florida legislative session are taking effect July 1. And some of the most high-profile legislation involve the constitutionally protected right to free expression — and possibly even collides with it. They implicate areas ranging from strip clubs to campaign advertisements, from schools to emergency scenes. Here are some of the related changes to state law coming this summer, though many could soon after face First Amendment challenges in court. 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 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice