August 16, 2024

In the News

Fort Worth Report: Tarrant County judge, conservative activists want TCU professor fired over anarchist rhetoric

By Cecilia Lenzen and Shomial Ahmad

.....As Texas Christian University gears up for its first week of the fall semester, one professor is attracting attention from a growing number of Tarrant County conservatives, including elected officials. 

Alexandra Edwards, an English instructor in the university’s AddRan College of Liberal Arts, is under fire for her posts on social media, where she often writes about anarchism, anti-racism, white supremacy and Christian nationalism…

David Keating, president of the national nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, said O’Hare and Ramirez have a right to free speech even as elected officials and are well within that right to call for her termination. However, he questioned whether such commentary was appropriate. 

“They have a First Amendment right to say, ‘I think you ought to get rid of that person,’” Keating said. “Whether they should be doing stuff like that, I don’t think it’s a good idea. I think they should butt out of it.” 

Prism: Students navigate legal hearings and potential penalties following pro-Palestine protests

By Maddie Khaw

.....The First Amendment protects students’ freedom of speech, but it isn’t boundless, said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech. 

“No matter how unjust the law is, you don’t have a right to break it,” Keating said. “If you get arrested, you have to be willing to accept the consequences of punishment … That said, the important thing is that penalties for violations are reasonable.”

The Courts

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:  Lawsuit seeks to bar Wisconsin DOT from rejecting personalized license plates

By Jessie Opoien

.....A new lawsuit seeks to bar the state Department of Transportation from rejecting personalized license plates, citing First Amendment protections.

The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty filed the challenge this week in the Western District U.S. District Court, arguing the state "uses subjective and arbitrary decisions" when determining what a driver is allowed to display on a custom plate.

Candidates and Campaigns

Politico (Digital Future Daily): What AI is doing to campaigns (and isn’t)

By Mohar Chatterjee

.....For a while, it looked like AI was going to blow up campaign politics in 2024. Powerful new tools, new persuasion techniques, less policing of social-media platforms, all were leading up to a landscape transformed, maybe dangerously so.

With less than three months before the election, despite a handful of controversies and deepfake scares, it hasn’t quite panned out that way...

Though it all might seem a little dystopian, or at least claustrophobic, there are actually potential upsides to the public sphere. For instance, the dropping cost of more insightful, user-friendly AI tools could help bridge the gap between the haves and have-nots in political campaigning.

“A type of profiling that might have been available to a Senate campaign could become available to a city council candidate,” Issenberg said. “If [AI] allows non-technologically skilled campaign staffers to fully use microtargeted data, that’s a big deal on campaigns.”

Newsweek: Limiting Political Participation Based on Wealth Is un-American

By Mark R. Weaver

.....There's no government limit on how many hours a day you can stand on a street corner holding a sign encouraging people to vote for your favorite political candidate. The need for sleep, food, or work might intervene but—fear not—the guardrails on government power laid out in the First Amendment mean no bureaucrat can stop you from devoting all of your free time to this kind of political advocacy.

So, why should government be empowered to outlaw you from donating all or most of your money to that same favored candidate? It shouldn't. Red states like Utah and Alabama allow unlimited individual contributions to candidates for statewide office. The same goes for blue states like Oregon and Virginia and swing states like Pennsylvania and Missouri. But the federal government limits donations to a presidential campaign to just $3,300.

Reason: European and American Censors Want War With Elon Musk

By Robby Soave

.....Thankfully, the U.S. political system includes much stronger protections for free speech than our European counterparts. But that doesn't mean political dialogue is completely safe. On the contrary, Democratic activists are currently attempting to weaponize campaign finance laws against Trump and Musk to punish them for daring to speak.

End Citizens United, a Democratic political action committee (PAC), filed a formal complaint about the Musk-Trump interview with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The PAC wants the FEC to regard the interview as an illegal campaign contribution from X, the corporate entity, to Trump.

The States

Westword: Colorado Capitol Removes Ban on Political Apparel After Lawsuit Threat From Pro-Life Advocate

By Hannah Metzger

.....Seventeen months after Jeff Hunt was booted from the Colorado Senate gallery for wearing a pro-life sweatshirt, the Capitol has removed the rule banning political apparel in its galleries.

Austin American-Statesman: Election interference? Why a Texas Senate panel is demanding info from major tech companies

.....Four major "big tech" firms were put on notice Monday to produce to a Texas Senate committee any documents or records tied to potential election interference ahead of the November general election as part of the panel's probe into global social media platforms' influence on voters.

Resulting from a Senate Committee on State Affairs hearing in May, the legislative panel's official document requests were sent Monday to Meta, which owns Facebook; Alphabet Inc., which owns Google; TikTok; and X, formerly Twitter; as part of the committee's investigation aimed at preventing censorship of speech online and understanding the companies' ability to affect voter opinions, according to state Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola. The tech firms have until noon Aug. 30 to comply with the requests for "responsive documents" or risk future subpoenas.