Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 24, 2025 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]. Supreme Court CBS News: Supreme Court turns away bid to overturn 25-year-old decision on abortion clinic buffer zones By Melissa Quinn .....The Supreme Court on Monday turned away two appeals from abortion rights opponents asking the justices to overrule a 25-year-old decision that allowed for buffer zones around abortion clinics, leaving that ruling in place… Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said they would have granted the requests to hear the cases. In a dissent from the Supreme Court's denial of the appeal in one of those disputes, involving an ordinance passed by the city council in Carbondale, Illinois, Thomas said the high court should make clear that its 2000 decision "lacks continuing force" and should be explicitly overturned. The decision in Hill v. Colorado "has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty," he wrote. The Courts Wall Street Journal: Trump vs. the AP: An American Standoff By James Taranto .....Most news organizations (including the Journal) have responded to “Gulf of America” in the same way: by noting but declining to adopt Mr. Trump’s name change. Why did the White House single out the AP? Axios’s Marc Caputo reported on Feb. 17 that it was “to protest what aides see as years of liberal word choices that the wire service’s influential stylebook spread across mainstream media.” In emails to the AP on Feb. 18, chief of staff Susie Wiles confirmed that, according to the wire service’s lawsuit. Ed. note: Further reading, from the AP, is available here. Fox News: Judge blocks parts of Trump executive orders targeting DEI, citing free speech By Brie Stimson .....A federal judge on Friday granted a preliminary injunction over parts of the Trump administration’s executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The injunction largely blocks the sections of President Donald Trump's orders that seek to end federal support for programs deemed to be DEI-related, and prevents the Trump administration from canceling contracts that they believe promote diversity, equity or inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore, a Biden nominee, ruled that parts of the executive orders likely violate the Constitution and free speech. "The harm arises from the issuance of it as a public, vague, threatening executive order," Abelson said in a hearing this week, adding that it would discourage businesses working with the government from openly supporting DEI. Washington Post: Trump’s lawsuit barred by the First Amendment, pollster’s team argues By Maegan Vazquez .....Lawyers for J. Ann Selzer, a veteran Iowa pollster, have issued a scathing response to President Donald Trump’s lawsuit over a poll that showed him trailing Kamala Harris in Iowa days before the 2024 election, arguing that her polls are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. In a Friday filing, lawyers for Selzer, the Des Moines Register newspaper and its parent company, Gannett, asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa Central Division to dismiss the claims and requested oral arguments on the motion. FEC Texas Tribune: FEC clears Ted Cruz of wrongdoing over podcast syndicator’s donations to super PAC By Jasper Scherer .....U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz did not run afoul of campaign finance laws when the company that syndicates his podcast contributed nearly $1 million through a series of payments to a super PAC supporting Cruz’s reelection bid, the Federal Election Commission ruled. In a 5-1 decision, the agency dismissed a complaint filed by campaign finance watchdog groups, who alleged that Cruz could have violated campaign funding rules if he played any role in iHeartMedia’s contributions to the pro-Cruz Truth and Courage PAC. Under federal law, candidates can only direct or solicit up to $5,000 in donations to super PACs, which can otherwise raise unlimited sums to support candidates. FTC The Hill: FTC launches probe into ‘Big Tech censorship’ By Miranda Nazzaro .....The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is launching a probe into leading technology companies’ content policies and user bans, Chair Andrew Ferguson announced Thursday, suggesting their actions could amount to illegal censorship. “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal. The FTC wants your help to investigate these potential violations of the law,” Ferguson wrote in a post on the social platform X. “We are asking for public submissions from anyone who has been a victim of tech censorship (banning, demonetization, shadow banning, etc.), from employees of tech platforms, or from anyone else who can shed light on these practices and the ways in which they may violate the law.” People are invited to submit pictures and documents, Ferguson said, and can stay anonymous if they prefer. He called the probe an “important step forward in restoring free speech.” Trump Administration Cato: When Does Speech Threaten Officials? From Washington, a Newly Aggressive View By Walter Olson .....If you expected a second Trump term to usher in some sort of new era of free speech, you might by now be feeling some rueful secondthoughts. In the latest development, Trump’s pick for federal prosecutor in Washington, DC, Edward R. Martin Jr., has sent a threat/​investigation letter to Rep. Robert Garcia (D‑CA) over comments that Garcia made during a live CNN interview on Feb. 12. Asked about Democrats’ response to Elon Musk, Garcia evoked a hackneyed trope about political hardball: “What the American public wants is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy.” Martin sees fit to pretend that these remarks somehow constitute an actual physical threat to Musk. Martin sent a similar letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D‑NY) over his intemperate “released the whirlwind” speech at the Supreme Court four years ago, on the premise that it too might have posed an unlawful threat to public officials. I wrote a piece at the time deploring those remarks of Schumer’s as reprehensible and out of line. But I never imagined for a moment that they amounted to some sort of legally cognizable threat to the Justices’ personal security. (Schumer says that by “whirlwind” he had in mind political and public-image consequences for the court.) Free Expression Knight Institute: Listeners’ Rights in the Time of Propaganda: The Story of Lamont v. Postmaster General By Xiangnong (George) Wang .....Lamont v. Postmaster General is a remarkable case for many reasons. Lamont invalidated a federal law barring Americans from receiving so-called “communist political propaganda” from foreign sources unless they requested it be delivered. It was the first case to definitively hold that the First Amendment protects the rights of listeners independent of any corollary right of speakers. And it was a forceful rebuke to an anti-communist Congress at the height of the Cold War. Astonishingly, Lamont also marked the first time the Supreme Court struck down an act of Congress on First Amendment grounds. The story of Lamont is one of the vital importance of listeners in the constellation of interests safeguarded by the First Amendment. It established that the First Amendment protects the right of the public to receive information and ideas from abroad, even when the government deems that material subversive and un-American. The Court’s ruling, and in particular Justice William J. Brennan’s insightful concurring opinion, presciently recognized that preserving the free flow of ideas across borders is vital to maintaining a robust democracy. But, for all its significance, Lamont is largely an overlooked precedent. There are few dedicated scholarly treatments of the case, and it garners barely a mention in most casebooks. Fewer than two dozen Supreme Court cases cite Lamont in controlling opinions. Racket News: The Library: Timeline of Foreign Censorship Laws By Matt Taibbi and Kathleen McCook .....Since J.D. Vance’s speech in Munich on February 14th, European internet regulations have been at issue. The Racket Library attempts to compile pertinent documents in one place, by theme, with the aid of readers. If you think a document or regulation should be on this list but is not, please write to [email protected]. This list is far from complete. It will be updated and is meant to be understood as an introduction to the overall timeline of U.S.-European relations with regard to civil liberties, censorship, and hate speech laws. We’ve elected to speed past early efforts to define Internet law like France’s 2004 LCEN, or Loi pour la confiance dans l’économie numérique, which lacked the muscle and ambition of later counterparts. Aggressive European speech laws began to be implemented in the mid-2010s. Though American officials were often sympathetic and hoped to implement similar ideas here, these efforts were generally rebuffed, as “experts” observed that the First Amendment made EU-style laws an impossibility. European rights guarantees are often framed as “freedom of expression, but,” as in the case of the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It calls the “free communication of ideas” “precious… except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty.” Americans consider their rights inherent. The States Idaho Capital Sun: Idaho legislators address ‘monetization of politics’ in new campaign finance bills By Mia Maldonado .....Republican House leadership introduced four bills on Friday to address the influx of out-of-state spending involved in Idaho elections… Moyle, alongside House State Affairs Committee Chairman Brent Crane, R-Nampa, introduced four bills to the committee, including: House Bill 306, which would establish “criminal libel,” is a bill to make it a felony for someone to publish false statements about another person, establishing a maximum $100,000 fine, imprisonment for at most five years, or both. House Bill 307 is a bill to allow the Idaho Secretary of State Office to investigate false claims against a candidate and publish its findings on its website. House Bill 308 is a bill to require electioneering communications costing more than $1,000 to be reported within 24 hours closer to primary and general elections, and require political committees to upload materials they make about a candidate or campaign to the Idaho Secretary of website. House Bill 309 is a bill which would require lobbyists to disclose expenses on a weekly basis during the legislative session and a monthly basis outside of session. Tennessee Conservative: Campaign Finance Bill That Could Be Detrimental To Underfunded Conservative Political Candidates To Be Heard In TN House Subcommittee By Paula Gomes .....A campaign finance bill that could prove detrimental to conservative political candidates whose campaigns are underfunded will be heard in the House Elections and Finance Subcommittee on Tuesday, February 25th, 2025. The six-page bill sponsored by Senator Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville-District 7) would make several changes pertaining to campaign finance requirements and procedures, many of which may not serve conservatives well as the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance has a history of targeting conservative individuals and organizations. Senate Bill 0229 (SB0229) and it’s corresponding House Bill 0653 (HB0653) sponsored by Representative Tim Hicks (R-Gray-District 6) also funnels more money to the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance. Some of the proposed changes include: • Allowing the Registry of Election Finance to skip audits or investigations of complaints against financial reports and instead go straight to show cause hearings. • Requiring local candidates whose jurisdiction covers more than one county to register a political treasurer for each county. • Instituting an annual $150 fee to be paid by political campaigns to the Registry of Election Finance to offset costs incurred by the registry in regulation political campaign committees, otherwise known as political action committees. • Increasing the limit from $100 to $250 for campaign related contributions involving events hosted at a supporter’s home, or other real property. • Designating expenditures used for litigation in the defense of a candidate’s standing or reputation within a community as prohibited “personal use” of campaign funds. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Court Voids Discipline of Public School Teacher for Two 2020 Anti-Bernie-Sanders Posts By Eugene Volokh .....From today's decision in Caggiano v. Duval County School Bd., decided by Florida Court of Appeal Judge Scott Makar, joined by Judges Harvey Jay and Adrian Soud: Minnesota House of Representatives (Session Daily): Free speech concerns raised over MN civil rights data collection By Tim Walker .....A 2023 law gave the Department of Human Rights authority to collect and analyze civil rights trends, “including information compiled from community organizations that work directly with historically marginalized communities.” The legislation charged the department with compiling incidents of civil rights violations, including verbal threats, and “prepare a report each biennium that recommends policy and system changes to reduce and prevent further civil rights incidents across Minnesota.” Rep. Walter Hudson (R-Albertville) believes that power is too broad and can have a “chilling effect” on constitutionally protected free speech by identifying individuals who voice unpopular, but protected, speech. He sponsors a bill to prohibit the department from collecting data or creating a database of incidents of protected speech, or from offering a reward for the reporting of incidents of protected speech. “HF768 is designed to uphold protected speech by safeguarding individuals’ rights to freely express their own opinions without fear of government monitoring,” Hudson said. The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee amended the bill Thursday and laid it over for future consideration... RaeAnna Lee, legislative and coalitions director at the Minnesota Americans for Prosperity, agreed the department’s efforts would have a chilling effect on protected speech. WANE 15: AG Rokita files motion to dismiss Indiana Supreme Court disciplinary commission’s latest complaint By Tyler Haughn .....Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a motion on Thursday to dismiss the latest complaint from the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. The complaint, which was filed on Jan. 31, filed three charges against Rokita for his public statements after he was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2023… The 26-page document filed on Thursday argues that the disciplinary commission’s latest complaint is an “impermissible attempt to restrain an elected official and candidate’s political speech.” The motion also argues that the charges brought against Rokita violate his First Amendment right to free speech and Indiana’s Anti-SLAPP statute intended to protect speech against legal challenges. 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