July 1, 2024

Ed. note: Yesterday was the anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and today is the anniversary of AFPF v. Bonta. Research Director Helen Knowles-Gardner writes about both rulings and the ongoing importance of donor privacy in this Time op-ed, published in January of this year.

Supreme Court

New York Post: Supreme Court sends challenge to Florida, Texas laws restricting social media regulation back to lower courts

By Ryan King

.....The Supreme Court on Monday kicked back a challenge to laws out of Florida and Texas that curtail content regulation by social media giants back to the lower courts.

In its decision for the combined NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice cases authored by Justice Elana Kagan, the high court concluded that neither of the lower courts “conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges.”

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): What Does "Corruptly" Mean? The Justices Really Do Not Want To Tell Us

By Josh Blackman

.....In Fischer, the majority relies on the uncertainty of "corruptly" to suggest that the government's reading of the statute is too sweeping. Specifically, Chief Justice Roberts writes, Section 1512(c)(2) could be used to expose "activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison." The Solicitor General acknowledged that "under the Government's interpretation, a peaceful protester could conceivably be charged under §1512(c)(2) and face a 20-year sentence," so long as she acts "corruptly." And if "corruptly" just means "wrongful," such a prosecution would not be hard to bring.

In dissent, Justice Barrett contends that "the 'corruptly' element should screen out innocent activists and lobbyists who engage in lawful activity." Perhaps that argument works under Judge Walker's definition, but D.C. Circuit precedents contend that "corruptly" means "using unlawful means" or "acting with an unlawful purpose." In other words, wrongful. Why would the protestor be screened out with this capacious definition? Barrett does not explain.

The Hill: The Supreme Court just downgraded ‘the insurrection’ to trespassing

By Jonathan Turley

.....It now seems like the insurrection increasingly looks more like a legal case of mass trespass and unlawful entry.

I have always believed that criminal charges were warranted for the riot of Jan. 6, 2021. But this week’s decision shows how the Justice Department has wrongly prosecuted hundreds of people for the obstruction crime. It was all of what Justice Department official Michael Sherwin proudly declared in a television interview, that “our office wanted to ensure that there was shock and awe…it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C. because they’re, like, ‘If we go there, we’re gonna get charged.’ …We wanted to take out those individuals that essentially were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did.”

Washington Post: Supreme Court conservatives sure have a funny way of voting as a ‘bloc’

By George F. Will

.....In a case that refuted lazy language about the Supreme Court being controlled by a six-justice conservative “bloc,” the court on Wednesday rendered a 6-3 judgment with three conservatives on each side. The case, concerning Biden administration attempts to shape the “content moderation” policies of social media platforms, showed that constitutional conservatives can interestingly conflict.

Congress

The Atlantic: How Congress Could Protect Free Speech on Campus

By Conor Friedersdorf

.....Rather than risk policing everyone’s speech more intensely, Americans should demand a reaffirmation of that most foundational civil right: the ability of everyone to speak freely. Safeguarding this right requires Congress to act. It should not repeal Title VI—the prohibition on discriminatory double standards should stand. Instead it should amend the statute to clarify that nothing in the law requires policing speech protected by academic freedom or the First Amendment.

Archive.today link

Free Expression

Wall Street Journal: Tractor Supply Retreats From DEI Amid Conservative Backlash

By Sarah Nassauer and Sabela Ojea

.....Tractor Supply, a rural retailer that is known for selling animal feed and workwear, said it is done with corporate diversity and many environmental efforts, a striking reversal as more companies face criticism of these initiatives from conservative activists…

 The Brentwood, Tenn.-based retailer also said it...would stop sponsoring pride festivals for the LGBTQ community and voting campaigns ahead of the presidential election.

The moves, which come after weeks of criticism on social media from a prominent conservative political commentator, represent one of the most drastic corporate retreats from progressive initiatives at a time when many companies are reconsidering their advocacy of a host of causes.

New York Post: ‘The trans lobby got me canceled for saying skeletons are either male or female’: professor

By John Mac Ghlionn

.....Dr. Elizabeth Weiss is concerned about the direction academia is heading. And she’s not afraid to say it out loud.

“Hardly a week passes without some new absurdity. The most absurd example is when the trans lobby got me canceled for saying skeletons are either male or female,” the anthropologist told The Post. “This will have serious, real-world consequences when the next generation of forensic pathologists can’t — or won’t — sex skeletal remains.”

In her new book “On the Warpath” — the very title of which is considered offensive by some — Weiss dives into the contentious landscape of modern academia, arguing that a pervasive woke culture is eroding its very foundations. She warns that the push to accommodate sociopolitical sensitivities can come at the expense of rigorous scientific debate and exploration.

Online Speech Platforms

The Telegraph: Reform to lodge complaint against TikTok after Widdecombe ‘cut off’

By Amy Gibbons and Daniel Hardaker

.....Reform UK has said it will lodge a complaint against TikTok after the video-sharing app shut down a livestream of its campaign rally in Birmingham on Sunday.

Richard Tice, the Reform president, accused the platform of an “outrageous, biased attack” on the party and claimed it was “in hoc to ridiculous wokery” after the stream was suspended during a speech by campaigner Ann Widdecombe.

He speculated that the decision to cut the feed was down to Ms Widdecombe saying that “there are only two genders”. Nigel Farage, the Reform leader, joked about the incident in his own speech later on.

TikTok confirmed the stream was suspended but put it down to a moderation error, saying access was restored within 30 minutes.

The States

AZ Mirror: Appeals court upholds core of AZ ‘dark money’ disclosure law voters approved in 2022

By Caitlin Sievers

.....A three-judge panel on the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled to uphold the majority of the Voters’ Right to Know Act, which voters overwhelmingly passed in 2022. However, it concluded that a provision in the law that bars the legislature — which Republicans narrowly control — from limiting the Citizens Clean Elections Commission from enforcing the “dark money” disclosure provisions is unconstitutional.

New Mexico in Depth: Ethics Commission asks judge to force disclosure from dark money group

By Marjorie Childress

.....The New Mexico State Ethics Commission is putting pressure on a dark money political group to comply with state disclosure laws. 

The new group made a splash in April when it began airing radio ads, and its founder, Jeff Apodaca, promoted its political agenda on local radio shows. But unlike other political groups, the New Mexico Project didn’t disclose who contributed to the organization, or how it was spending the money, leaving the public in the dark about the special interests underwriting the group. 

In its filing, the commission laid out its case and evidence that the group meets the criteria for registering as a political committee: 

New York Times: He Got $162,000 in Taxpayer Money and 6% of the Vote

By Jay Root and Bianca Pallaro

.....New York State went to unusual lengths to give a long-shot candidate for a State Assembly seat in Queens more than $162,000 in taxpayer money for his campaign, even though the paperwork he submitted to regulators lacked information their handbook called for.

That candidate, Dao Yin, was trounced in the Democratic primary last week, pulling in less than 6 percent of the vote.

The New York Times revealed right before the primary that Yin’s campaign had submitted fake donations and forged signatures to obtain much of the money. On Thursday, the state’s Public Campaign Finance Board voted unanimously to adopt an emergency resolution meant to tighten its rules and prevent future abuses...

The change approved last week requires that contribution cards turned in by candidates include donors’ telephone numbers or email addresses. The system’s guidelines already called for candidates to provide that information, but the board had allowed candidates to sidestep those guidelines by submitting “good-faith letters” saying they had tried to get it.

Louisiana Illuminator: Political ‘deepfakes’ remain legal in Louisiana. Gov. Landry has First Amendment concerns.

By Wesley Muller

.....Gov. Jeff Landry has vetoed a bill that would have made it illegal to deceive voters with false impersonations or depictions of a political candidate through audio or video manipulation techniques called “deepfakes.”

House Bill 154, sponsored by Rep. Mandie Landry, D-New Orleans, was one among 31 bills the governor vetoed from the 2024 regular session. The two Landrys are not related.

In his letter explaining the reasons for his veto, the governor said he believes the legislation could have infringed on the free speech rights of artificial intelligence (AI) companies. 

“While I applaud the efforts to prevent false political attacks, I believe this bill creates serious First Amendment concerns as it relates to emerging technologies,” the governor wrote. “The law is far from settled on this issue, and I believe more information is needed before such regulations are enshrined into law.”

Tulsa World: Oklahoma Ethics Commission grapples with independent expenditures

By Randy Krehbiel

.....“Our rules do not define coordination,” said Oklahoma Ethics Commission Chairman Jarred Brejcha.

The lack of definition has, at times, made enforcing the rules more difficult. Arguably, it has probably made compliance harder, too...

The issue was among several identified for study by the commission this year, and last week Brejcha, fellow Commissioner Gregg Engle, Executive Director Lee Anne Bruce Boone and General Counsel Margaret Kerr held a public hearing on it at the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa.

Campaign finance rules are a pretty esoteric subject and not one to exactly bring out the masses, but Brejcha said he was encouraged. The rise of independent expenditures, many of them through front organizations that do not disclose donors, is a vexation to people across the political spectrum.

“We had over a dozen people come — which, by the way, is significantly more than typically would turn out for an actual Ethics Commission meeting,” Brejcha said.

One suggestion that seemed to have general support, he said, is to adopt something as close as possible to the federal definition of coordination.