December 12, 2024

In the News

Newsweek: Should U.S. Ban Unabomber Manifesto?

By Shane Croucher

.....So, is the Unabomber's manifesto too dangerous to exist freely? Should it face restrictions, perhaps even a ban in the U.S. because of its potential to inspire extremists? Or does the First Amendment trump these concerns?

Newsweek asked a range of activists, academics, and commentators for their views on a ban. Here's that they said.

David Keating, President, Institute for Free Speech

No, we shouldn't because it's a bad idea, and we can't because it would violate the First Amendment.

Attempting to ban the tract would ensure more read it because of the Streisand effect. Actress Barbra Streisand's attorneys tried to censor a photo of her mansion, which caused unprecedented attention to it instead.

And the command of the First Amendment is clear: the government can't ban publications except in narrow circumstances that don't apply to the Unabomber's manifesto.

I also note that the publication of the manifesto in The Washington Post led to Ted Kaczynski's brother providing information that broke the nearly 20-year-old case.

NH Journal:  Nashua City Attorney: Israeli Flag Too Controversial to Fly at City Hall

By Damien Fisher

.....The Israeli flag, the white and blue banner with the Star of David, is the official symbol of the state of Israel, one of America’s closest allies. And yet the City of Nashua told a federal judge Israel’s flag is too controversial to fly at City Hall Plaza.

The Pride flag, on the other hand, is more than welcome on Nashua city property, despite being an entirely political symbol of the LGBT movement.

Nashua’s Assistant Corporation Counsel Jonathan Barnes said flying Israel’s flag would spark a flood of angry phone calls and threats, while “reasonable citizens” wouldn’t be bothered by the Pride flag.

Those revelations came last month in federal court as part of the city’s legal defense against a lawsuit filed by resident Beth Scaer. The city rejected her requests to fly the Pine Tree Riot flag and a banner promoting girls-only sports on Nashua’s public flagpole. Scaer claims she’s the victim of viewpoint discrimination by the Democrat-controlled city. She is represented by the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy McCandless…

“The City of Nashua’s terrifying argument demonstrates why free speech is so important,” said Institute for Free Speech attorney Nathan Ristuccia. “We cannot trust the government to decide whose views are too controversial to be permitted.”

KFOR: KFOR wins court battle with Oklahoma State Department of Education

By Kari King

.....KFOR has won a legal battle involving the Oklahoma State Department of Education, specifically State Superintendent Ryan Walters and his Press Secretary, Dan Isett.

Earlier this year, KFOR-TV and The Institute for Free Speech filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on Monday.

For months, KFOR journalists have been refused access to public State Board of Education meetings and placed in an overflow room.

KFOR journalists have been excluded from press conferences held by Walters following those board meetings.

Walters and Isett claim News 4, with its 75-year broadcast history, is not a legitimate news organization.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Oklahoma TV Station Scores Major Victory for Press Freedom

.....After officials blocked reporters from attending state government proceedings, Oklahoma’s oldest television station has now secured a major victory for press freedom, reaching a settlement that ensures its reporters will have full access to state education meetings and officials.

The agreement resolves the First Amendment lawsuit filed by the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Bob Nelon of Hall Estill on behalf of three reporters and their employer, the owner of Oklahoma City television station KFOR-TV, against Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters and Press Secretary Dan Isett. The settlement guarantees KFOR equal access to State Board of Education meetings, press conferences, and other media events.

“This settlement vindicates the fundamental principle that government officials cannot declare themselves the arbiters of ‘truth,’ or pick and choose which news outlets cover their activities based on how favorable the reporting is,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller. “The First Amendment protects the right of journalists to gather and report news, even—or especially—when the coverage scrutinizes government officials and holds them accountable to the public.”

Supreme Court

New York Times: The Supreme Court Must Intervene in the TikTok Case

By Jameel Jaffer and Genevieve Lakier

.....Last week, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a federal law that threatens to shut down TikTok in the United States. The court’s most consequential conclusion: The First Amendment permits the government to protect Americans from covert foreign manipulation by restricting their access to foreign-controlled media — even when that means Americans’ speech is restricted, too.

The ruling is bad news for TikTok, its China-based parent, ByteDance, and its approximately 170 million American users. It also seriously weakens the First Amendment, and by extension our democracy, at an exceptionally perilous time.

Governments around the world are using the threat of foreign interference to justify the closure and harassment of media organizations and advocacy groups, and to impose new limitations on citizens’ access to information from abroad. Our next president has made clear he will exploit any legal authority he can to suppress what he deems to be “fake news.”

In this political landscape, the court’s opinion is an invitation to abuse. TikTok has said it will ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the case. It should.

The appellate court’s reasoning deviates from ordinary First Amendment principles in a number of ways. To begin, the judges gave near-categorical deference to the government’s claims about the risks associated with TikTok.

Congress

The Hill: Cotton blocks federal shield law for journalists

By Lauren Irwin

.....Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) blocked a federal shield law that would protect journalists from revealing their sources and material to the government.

In the Senate on Tuesday, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for unanimous consent for the Senate to pass the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying Act, known as the PRESS Act, and Cotton objected.

Cotton criticized the “liberal media” and said it doesn’t “deserve more protections.”

“The press badge doesn’t make you better than the rest of America or put you above the law,” he said on the Senate floor.

The Hill has reached out to Cotton’s office for comment, but in a post on the social platform X, he said the bill would “undermine” national security and “turn liberal reporters into a protected class.”

“No American citizen should be afforded the privilege provided in this bill, least of all the media,” Cotton said in the post.

Just the News: ActBlue Bombshell: Dem money platform tells Congress it didn't block foreign gift cards until fall

By John Solomon

.....ActBlue, the massive online fund-raising platform for liberal causes, has informed Congress it did not automatically block donations made with foreign-bought gift cards until recently, a potentially significant revelation in an ongoing investigation into whether China, Russia, Iran or Venezuela routed illicit money to Democrat candidates.

House Administratrion Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., whose panel oversees election integrity, told Just the News on Tuesday that ActBlue turned over documents under subpoena showing a major change in September to its donor verification policies designed to protect against illicit money flowing into political campaigns. 

Washington Post (Tech Brief): Senators turn to Elon Musk to pressure House on child online safety

By Cristiano Lima-Strong

.....Musk and one of his top lieutenants, X CEO Linda Yaccarino, amplified calls Saturday to pass the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), a sweeping bill that sailed through the Senate in July but has been bogged down in the House amid opposition from Republican leadership.

The measure would require online platforms to take “reasonable” steps to prevent harms to minors, such as cyberbullying, sexual exploitation and drug addiction. Top House Republicans have expressed concern it could also force platforms to censor users.

Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), the bill’s lead sponsors, said they worked with X to ensure it does not infringe upon free expression, including by adding language that it could not be used to target users based on their “viewpoint.”

Donor Privacy

National Taxpayers Union Foundation: Protecting Privacy and Advocacy: Dangerous Proposed Amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 29

By Tyler Martinez

.....NTUF’s Taxpayer Defense Center teamed up with People United for Privacy Foundation to file comments against dangerous proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 29. FRAP Rule 29 regulates how organizations file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in federal court. Currently, organizations filing briefs in federal court must state their identity, their interest in the case, and certify whether any party or other person paid for the creation of the amicus brief. The proposed changes would instead demand donor disclosure for those who gave as little as $100 to the amicus organization. This intrusion into donor privacy would deter filings, chill speech, and violate the First Amendment.

Both NTUF and PUFPF file amicus briefs to lend our expertise to courts across the country. The Supreme Court has long recognized that “[e]ffective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association,” and that there is a “vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations.” Our organizations are effective precisely because we gather the strength of our members and supporters to fight for taxpayers in court. 

Department of State

Washington Examiner: State Department notifies Congress of plans to shutter ‘censorship’ agency

By Gabe Kaminsky

.....The State Department sent a notification to Congress that it plans to terminate an agency accused of censoring conservatives after losing support from lawmakers, according to a court filing and a source familiar with the correspondence.

In the filing, attorneys for the State Department said the agency told lawmakers on Friday of its plan to move the Global Engagement Center’s staff and funding to other bureaus aimed at fighting foreign disinformation. The filing was made public as part of a lawsuit brought by conservative media outlets against the State Department over its funding of the Global Disinformation Index, a fact first reported by the Washington Examiner in 2023 that sparked congressional oversight and a flurry of lawsuits.

The States

Cleveland.com: Finally, an Ohio anti-SLAPP bill with the support to pass: editorial

By Editorial Board

.....Activists and lawyers have been trying for years to pass anti-SLAPP legislation in Ohio, one of the few states that doesn’t have such a law to protect average citizens from meritless lawsuits filed by private parties aimed at suppressing their free-speech rights through expensive litigation.

SLAPP is the term for this maneuver, shorthand for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s “strategic” because the plaintiffs generally aim to intimidate, harass and embarrass litigants with lengthy, expensive litigation aimed at grinding them down into silencing their speech.

Senate Bill 237, sponsored by two Republicans, state Sens. Theresa Gavarone of Bowling Green and Nathan Manning of North Ridgeville, would change that by forcing plaintiffs to justify their lawsuits on constitutional grounds early in the process, to deter punitive use of SLAPPs.

The bill, which passed the Ohio Senate unanimously, is awaiting an expected Ohio House vote today to send SB 237 back to the Senate for a concurrence vote, cleveland.com’s Robert Higgs reports. Then it should be on to Gov. Mike DeWine’s desk for signature.

Good.

The Verge: California could become the first state to require social media warning labels

By Emma Roth

.....A new California bill could require social media platforms to display warning labels about the potential risk to kids and teens. The bill (AB 56), introduced by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, is meant to help address “the growing mental health crisis” among young people.

If passed, social networks would have to show a “black box warning” to all users, regardless of age, during their first time using the platform. The warning, which platforms must display for 90 seconds or more, would then show up at least once a week following its initial appearance.