The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech August 6, 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 The Center Square: Op-Ed: Proper masking law promotes freedom By Nathan Ristuccia .....Masked anti-Semites have harassed Jews across the country. But the response shouldn’t be to ban masks. Proper masking law promotes freedom. In recent months, there has been a growing push in legal circles and across several states to enact or revive anti-masking laws in response to pro-Palestinian protests and incidents of antisemitism. Lawmakers in North Carolina, New York, and other states have proposed or supported legislation to criminalize mask-wearing in various public spaces, citing concerns about protesters concealing their identities while engaging in threatening behavior. Although these efforts are well-intentioned, broad anti-masking laws undermine free speech and assembly rights. And advocates of anti-masking statutes often repeat two common misconceptions about the history and impact of these laws. Supreme Court New York Times: Supreme Court Rejects Long-Shot Challenge to Trump Hush Money Case By Adam Liptak .....The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an audacious lawsuit by Missouri that asked the justices to intervene in the hush money case in New York in which former President Donald J. Trump was convicted of falsifying business records. Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s attorney general, asked the court to defer Mr. Trump’s sentencing, scheduled for Sept. 18, until after the election and to lift a gag order limiting what he can say. The Supreme Court’s brief order did not lay out the court’s reasoning. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have let the state file the suit, but they did not express a view about whether it had merit. The Courts Courthouse News: Eighth Circuit tosses lawsuit challenging Missouri school district’s book-banning policy By Joe Harris .....Finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing, the Eighth Circuit on Friday tossed a lawsuit filed by a group of parents challenging a suburban Kansas City school district’s book-banning policy. The unanimous decision by the three-judge panel upheld a decision from a federal court, which had previously granted the Independence School District's motion to dismiss. At issue is a school board policy that automatically removes library materials, including books, immediately after receiving a challenge and before any review or vote. Just the News: Public college pays censored students $330,000, changes policies to protect officials from liability By Greg Piper .....A year after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to throw out a First Amendment lawsuit against a public college that banned pro-life and anticommunist flyers by a student group, the parties have reached a settlement. The State Center Community College District agreed to pay $330,000, adopt a new posting policy and "provide annual documented First Amendment training to all managers," the first of which in December must be done by "qualified outside counsel," the settlement agreement says. Evansville Courier & Press: Appeals court sides with Evansville in First Amendment argument on billboards By Sarah Loesch .....In 2021, a judge in Indiana Southern District Court said a portion of Evansville's zoning code violated the First Amendment — three years later, a federal appeals court said it disagrees. GEFT Outdoor LLC, an outdoor advertising company, filed suit against the city of Evansville in 2019 after it was denied a variance to install a digital billboard on Oak Grove Road. In that case, the district court ruled it was a form of content discrimination that the city's zoning code distinguishes between on-premise and off-premise signs. The city appealed the ruling, and while the case was pending, the Supreme Court ruled in Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC, in 2022, that the distinction is not a violation of the First Amendment, court records state. This meant the appeals court vacated the district court decision. According to records from the appeals court's Aug. 1 ruling, GEFT Outdoor returned to district court after the first decision was vacated. Congress Just the News: House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil expands probe of donations through ActBlue By Nicholas Ballasy .....House Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., expanded his investigation into online political donations through ActBlue on Monday. "Illegal and malicious conduct have no place in our elections. Ensuring all parties are complying with federal election law as we approach a presidential election is of utmost importance. By launching a new phase of our investigation into ActBlue, the Committee on House Administration has begun robust oversight of ActBlue's lenient donor verification standards," he said in a statement. "I'm committed to ensuring Americans can have confidence in our elections and to preventing foreign or malicious actors from influencing American elections." Steil wrote to Federal Election Commission (FEC) Chairman Sean Cooksey and Vice Chair Ellen Weintraub "requesting the FEC immediately initiate an emergency rulemaking process to require political campaigns verify the card verification value (CVV) of donors who contribute online and a rulemaking to prohibit political committees from accepting online contributions from gift cards or credit and debit cards." Free Expression Wall Street Journal: It’s Getting Harder for Companies to Keep Politics Out of the Workplace By Chip Cutter and Lauren Weber .....How employers deal with charged topics in the office continues to evolve. In recent weeks, Salesforce created a new policy asking employees to stop talking about the war in Gaza in its Slack channels, a move that came after the company felt some employees were spending too much time debating such issues... Delta Air Lines in July banned its flight attendants from wearing non-U.S. flag pins on their uniforms after some customers expressed frustration at seeing flight attendants wearing pins of the Palestinian flag. The policy shift spurred its own complaints; some flight attendants advocating for union representation within the airline urged Delta to reverse its change, saying it restricted crew members’ ability to express themselves. A patchwork of laws and regulations, including the National Labor Relations Act, offer some limited protections for workplace speech, but workers in the private sector aren’t covered by the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech. And every U.S. state except Montana operates under an “at-will” presumption, meaning employers can dismiss workers for any reason other than illegal ones such as religious or sex discrimination. Candidates and Campaigns City & State: Could Andrew Cuomo use his state campaign funds to run for NYC mayor? By Sahalie Donaldson .....Rumors are swirling that former Gov. Andrew Cuomo may be eyeing a potential run for New York City mayor. For someone long regarded as one of the strongest fundraisers in the Democratic Party – and with no shortage of money still on hand – he could bring with him a significant cash advantage. But would campaign finance laws allow Cuomo to use his nearly $8 million war chest for a New York City mayoral run? What of the other state elected officials looking to get in on city races? Transferring money from a state campaign into a city one is complicated – so much so that most candidates don’t even bother trying. But it is ultimately possible, according to campaign finance and election experts. The first step is to file with the city – which Cuomo has not done. The States San Francisco Chronicle: California artist fined for criticizing park ranger wins free-speech appeal By Bob Egelko .....It’s against the law in San Diego to make a “loud noise” in public, or to use “noisy, boisterous, vulgar, or indecent language” in a street or in a park, store or other public place. A local artist was found guilty last year of violating the ordinance by criticizing a park ranger while filming him as the ranger issued a citation to another person. That conviction, and the ordinance itself, violate the constitutional right of free speech, an appellate court ruled Monday. The decision could be cited in challenges to any similar ordinances in other California communities. “The freedom to speak without risking arrest is ‘one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation,’” Presiding Judge Albert Harutunian wrote in a 3-0 ruling by the Appellate Division of San Diego County Superior 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