December 19, 2024

In the News

Cleveland.com: Ohio lawmakers move to thwart abusive defamation suits, send bill to governor

By Robert Higgs

.....A bill that takes aim at the use of the courts to silence critics from exercising free speech for fear of expensive litigation cleared the Ohio General Assembly on Wednesday.

The bill, Senate Bill 237, would combat a civil action known as a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” or more simply a SLAPP – a legal action used by deep-pocketed plaintiffs that makes claims such as defamation and invasion of privacy to intimidate people exercising their rights to free speech…

In a column written for cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, Ohioan Charles “Chip” Miller, senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech, said the legislation has long been needed to tame SLAPP suits.

“This major threat to free speech allows deep-pocketed individuals or businesses to file frivolous lawsuits to remove speech they don’t like and punish the speaker,” Miller wrote. “These plaintiffs usually claim that the speech constitutes defamation, suing speakers to force them to bear significant litigation costs. Unscrupulous, often sophisticated, plaintiffs can use SLAPPs to silence unwelcome speech protected by the First Amendment.”

Congress

Fox News: Spending bill to fund State Department agency accused of censoring, blacklisting Americans

By Michael Dorgan 

.....A State Department agency – which has been chided by conservatives for its alleged blacklisting of Americans and news outlets – is set to be refunded in the continuing resolution (CR) bill currently being hammered out among lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

The Global Engagement Center has been included in page 139 of the CR. Although it doesn’t specify its budget allocation, a previous Inspector General report shows the agency’s FY 2020 budget totaled $74.26 million, of which $60 million was appropriated by Congress. 

The provision in the CR can be found under "Foreign Affairs Section 301. Global Engagement Center Extension," and comes despite the State Department saying in response to a lawsuit that it intended to shut down the agency by next week.

House Judiciary Committee and Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government: Report: The Federal Government's Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech

.....Today, the House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government released an interim report titled, "Censorship's Next Frontier: The Federal Government's Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech." The interim report details threats to the free and open development of AI and identifies the free speech risks associated with the federal government's current involvement in AI development.

Key findings from the Committee and Select Subcommittee's investigation include: 

Just the News: House panel warns of foreign election interference through nonprofits, ActBlue

By Natalia Mittelstadt

.....During a House Administration Committee hearing on Wednesday, members of Congress and witnesses warned of foreign interference in elections, from foreign nationals donating to 501(c) organizations to using straw donors through ActBlue.

Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., warned during the committee hearing, "American Confidence in Elections: Prohibiting Foreign Interference," of multiple ways that foreign nationals and other countries may interfere in U.S. elections.

"Federal law generally prohibits noncitizens or foreign businesses from directly giving money to candidates, campaigns, Super PACs or running ads in support of or against candidates," Steil said. "However, it is currently legal for foreign nationals to indirectly funnel money through 501(c) organizations. These organizations can then channel that money to Super PACs or another 501(c) to directly help a candidate or influence a policy."

People United for Privacy: PUFP Letter to House Admin on Importance of Privacy Protections in Foreign Influence Legislation

.....On behalf of People United for Privacy (PUFP), I submit the following comments for the hearing record related to the December 18, 2024 hearing in the U.S. House Committee on House Administration on “American Confidence in Elections: Prohibiting Foreign Interference.” These comments build on a prior Statement for the Record from PUFP regarding a May 16, 2024 hearing on “American Confidence in Elections: Preventing Noncitizen Voting and Other Foreign Interference."

Americans are rightly opposed to foreign influence in elections because it undermines the integrity of the democratic process, threatens national sovereignty, and erodes public trust in the fairness and legitimacy of our electoral systems. U.S. elections and political campaigns must be run for and by the American people, not foreign interests or federal bureaucrats.

As legislation is considered to ensure that foreigners cannot influence U.S. elections through donations to American nonprofits, we must also ensure that these laws do not become weapons for a future administration or federal agencies, such as the IRS, to invade the privacy of American donors and chill constitutionally-protected speech.

PDF

CBN: Sen. Lankford's Charitable Act Draws Bipartisan Support - Here's What It Would Do

By Michelle London

.....A move on Capitol Hill could provide Americans a larger tax deduction when they give to places of worship and other non-profit organizations.

Republican Sen. James Lankford introduced the bipartisan Charitable Act to motivate giving, and in turn, help organizations thrive...

"I'm very proud of how many Americans actually give to nonprofits, but we want people to actually be able to give a little bit more," said Lankford. "Right now, the average American gives about 1.7% of their income to a nonprofit – 1.7%. That's not a lot."

While he would like to see that number increase, Lankford knows certain changes must come first. 

The cap on federal charitable deductions for those who don't itemize would be raised to around $4,600 per individual, up from the previous cap of $300."

Still, he stresses the importance of itemizing for maximum benefit. "That 9% of the country actually itemize – we're trying to create an incentive for people that don't itemize on their taxes," said Lankford.

Ed. note: Read Charitable Giving Coalition's letter in support of the bill here.

Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog: Justices to hear arguments on TikTok ban on Jan. 10

By Amy Howe

.....The Supreme Court will hear two hours of oral arguments on Jan. 10 in TikTok’s appeal to block enforcement of a federal law that would require TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its parent company can sell off the U.S. company by Jan. 19.

In a one-page unsigned order issued on Wednesday morning, the justices agreed to take up the dispute and fast-track the briefing schedule for oral arguments early next year. The law will remain in place while the justices consider TikTok’s request, as well as a separate request filed by TikTok users.

The Courts

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): First Amendment Censorship Claims Against Stanford Internet Observatory Can Go Forward to Discovery as to Jurisdiction and Standing

By Eugene Volokh

.....From Hines v. Stamos, decided today by Judge Terry Doughty (W.D. La.):

Bloomberg Law: NetChoice Asks to Halt California Addictive Feeds Law This Year

By Isaiah Poritz

.....Tech industry trade group NetChoice’s request to block a California law restricting childrens’ access to social media platforms and “addictive algorithms” had a federal judge pondering recent US Supreme Court precedent at a hearing Tuesday.

Judge Edward J. Davila, at an hours long hearing in San Jose, Calif., repeatedly referenced a footnote in the top court’s most recent social media case—NetChoice v. Moody, involving a challenge to Florida’s social media law—which revealed the justice’s divided views about free speech protections for online platforms.

Federalist Society: Court Holds the Corporate Transparency Act Is Unconstitutional: A Victory for Limited Government and the Right to Privacy

By Devin Watkins 

.....Earlier this month, a federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), a law that requires new corporations to disclose the identities of their beneficial owners. Challengers argued in Texas Top Cop Shop v. Garland that Congress had no power to pass such a law, and the court agreed. This decision is a rare example of a court limiting Congress to the exercise of its enumerated powers, and it is a victory for the right to privacy…

Besides the lack of constitutional authority, as a matter of policy, the CTA’s requirements also raise significant privacy concerns. The government cannot be trusted to prevent leaks of the sensitive information it is trying to collect.

For instance, in Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, California required nonprofits to disclose their donors to the state—promising privacy of the donors’ identities—but then it posted the names and addresses of over a thousand organizations’ donors on the state’s website. California said this was a mistake and that it wouldn’t happen again, but the district court in this case found a “pervasive, recurring pattern” of such leaks. Leaks are likely to facilitate the kinds of harassment campaigns that occur far too often in our society today.

Online Speech Platforms

Washington Post: Musk’s influence on X eclipses all members of the incoming Congress, combined

By Jeremy B. Merrill, Trisha Thadani and Kevin Schaul

.....The billionaire, who is the world’s richest person according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, has the most followed account on X and an audience that eclipses other top political accounts, including those of President Joe Biden, Harris and Trump himself, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

Musk’s posts have received a total of 133 billion views since July, data analysis by The Washington Post shows. That’s 15 times Trump’s audience in the same period and more than 16 times the combined reach of all accounts belonging to members of the incoming Congress.