July 2, 2024

In the News

People United for Privacy: The Roots of Donor Disclosure Are Uglier Than We Knew

By Luke Wachob

.....This year, NAACP v. Alabama turns 66, but the case is anything but old news. Recent research by Helen Knowles-Gardner of the Institute for Free Speech sheds new light on this landmark Supreme Court decision. Her findings reveal that forcing the NAACP to disclose its donors was a deliberate strategy hatched by Alabama officials to stop the group in its tracks. Analyzing materials from numerous archival sources, Knowles-Gardner concludes that “the litigation was designed and intended to put the NAACP out of business.”

Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Court sends social media moderation cases back to lower courts

By Amy Howe

.....The Supreme Court on Monday sent a pair of challenges to laws in Texas and Florida that would regulate how large social media companies control content posted on their sites back to the lower courts for another look. In a decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the court explained that both lower courts had focused too narrowly on how the laws applied to the challengers themselves, large social media companies including Facebook and YouTube, even though the cases challenged the constitutionality of the laws more broadly.

The Courts

New York Times: Trump Moves to Overturn Manhattan Conviction, Citing Immunity Decision

By Ben Protess and William K. Rashbaum

.....Donald J. Trump began an effort on Monday to throw out his recent criminal conviction in Manhattan and postpone his upcoming sentencing, citing a new Supreme Court ruling that granted him broad immunity from prosecution for official actions he took as president, according to a person with knowledge of the matter.

In a letter to the judge overseeing the case, Mr. Trump’s lawyers sought permission to file a motion to set aside the verdict, doing so just hours after the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling involving one of Mr. Trump’s other criminal cases. The letter will not be public until Tuesday at the earliest, after which prosecutors will have a chance to respond.

Tampa Free Press: Federal Government Challenges Florida Law Restricting Teachers’ Use Of Preferred Pronouns

By Mike Jenkins

.....The Biden administration has entered the legal fight against a controversial Florida law restricting teachers’ use of students’ preferred pronouns and titles. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a friend-of-the-court brief this week, arguing that the law violates the rights of transgender teachers and students…

The DOJ brief, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, argues that the law violates the First Amendment rights of teachers and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits discrimination based on sex.

“The challenged law compels public school teachers to speak in a way that contradicts their professional judgment and violates their First Amendment right to free speech,” the brief states.

Indiana Public Media: Federal judge halts Indiana law that would impose stricter age verification on adult websites

By Brandon Smith

.....An Indiana law requiring stricter age verification for adult websites will not take effect July 1 after a federal judge halted the law Friday, ruling it is likely unconstitutional.

The law, SEA 17, said sites on which at least one-third of their images and videos are “material harmful to minors” must verify their customers’ ages with a mobile driver’s license or government ID — which Indiana doesn’t provide — or through a third-party age verification service.

A group of adult websites and their trade association, the Free Speech Coalition, sued the state earlier this month.

Federal Judge Richard Young said the law likely violates the First Amendment.

Congress

NextGov: House lawmakers push measure to limit impact of deceptive AI on elections

By Edward Graham

.....A coalition of House Democrats have proposed legislation that aims to minimize the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on all U.S. elections by establishing penalties and disclosure requirements around the use of the emerging capabilities in election messaging.

The bill, introduced on Thursday by Rep. Shontel Brown, D-Ohio, would prohibit AI from being used to interfere with Americans’ right to vote and would require that AI-generated election content include a disclaimer. The measure is co-sponsored by 47 Democrats.

According to the bill text provided by Brown’s office, the legislation would prohibit both the developers of AI tools and the users of the technologies from using the capabilities “in a manner that intentionally deprives or defrauds, or intentionally attempts to deprive or defraud, an individual of the right to vote in an election for federal, state or local office.”

Candidates and Campaigns

NBC News: Paid operatives linked to a GOP firm are helping Cornel West in Arizona

By Alex Seitz-Wald

.....A dozen paid operatives registered with Arizona’s secretary of state on Sunday to collect signatures on behalf of left-wing presidential candidate Cornel West, listing their employer as a Republican-leaning firm that recently worked for GOP House candidate Blake Masters.

Online Speech Platforms

Reuters:  Google to require disclosures for digitally altered content in election ads

.....Google said on Monday it would make it mandatory for advertisers to disclose election ads that use digitally altered content to depict real or realistic-looking people or events, its latest step to battle election misinformation.

The update to the disclosure requirements under the political content policy requires marketers to select a checkbox in the "altered or synthetic content" section of their campaign settings…

Google said it will generate an in-ad disclosure for feeds and shorts on mobile phones and in-streams on computers and television. For other formats, advertisers will be required to provide a noticeable "prominent disclosure" for users.