Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 26, 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]. Donor Privacy People United for Privacy: Report: 2025 State Threats to Donor Privacy and Nonprofit Advocacy By Matt Nese and Alex Baiocco .....In an era of weaponized government and political polarization, privacy has never been more important – or more endangered. Nowhere is this more evident than in the nonprofit community. Across the country, legislative and regulatory efforts in 34 states threaten to expose Americans’ private donations to nonprofit causes. In this memo, People United for Privacy Foundation (PUFPF) details the range and nature of those threats. Our forecast is based on an analysis of current and past legislation, regulatory proposals, and statements by public officials. We aim to be as comprehensive as possible, but new threats can arise at any time. PDF The Courts Courthouse News: X Corp., California reach agreement in free speech case By Alan Riquelmy .....X Corp. and the state of California reached a legal agreement Monday in an ongoing dispute, with the state conceding that one of its social media laws violated the First Amendment. The agreement is focused on Assembly Bill 587, which imposed reporting requirements on large social media companies. Those that made over $100 million annually had to reveal their content moderation policies. The state prevailed at a late 2023 hearing on a preliminary injunction requested by X, but the Ninth Circuit favored X’s arguments in September. It prevented the law’s implementation at that time. “It is hereby declared that subdivisions (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5) of California Business and Professions Code section 22677 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution facially and as applied to plaintiff,” attorneys wrote in the agreement. California also agreed to pay X almost $350,000 in attorneys' fees. Bloomberg Law: Apple to Push for Free Speech Tests in Labor Case at Fifth Cir. By Robert Iafolla .....Apple Inc.’s federal court appeal of an NLRB ruling that it illegally interrogated a worker includes an effort for new legal standards that would make it more difficult for the agency to police employers’ coercive questioning of employees. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument Tuesday over Apple’s challenge to the National Labor Relations Board’s decision. The technology giant urged the court in its brief to use US Supreme Court precedent from First Amendment cases involving criminal threats and alleged defamation to guide its review of the board’s ruling in a labor law dispute. New York Times: Greenpeace Goes to Court in $300 Million Suit That Poses Bankruptcy Risk By Karen Zraick .....Greenpeace went on trial on Monday in North Dakota in a bombshell lawsuit that, if successful, could bankrupt the storied group. The Dallas-based company Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2017, accusing it of masterminding raucous protests over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation nearly a decade ago. The activists say the lawsuit is a thinly veiled tactic to suppress free speech and set a chilling precedent for protest groups, and that Greenpeace played only a supporting role in demonstrations that were led by Native Americans… Deepa Padmanabha, a lawyer for Greenpeace, said that the group had supported the protests and that it had been involved in training people in nonviolent direct action, but that it was not central to the efforts. She said the claims involving trespass, in particular, sought to impose a “collective protest liability,” in which any group could be held responsible for the actions of every person in attendance. She offered the example of a nonviolent protester being held liable for the actions of “unknown people who, for example, set fire to construction equipment.” She added that “it’s pretty easy to see how, if successful, this kind of tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who might consider participating in a protest.” Trump Administration The Hill: White House to take over press pool amid ‘Gulf of America’ fight with AP By Dominick Mastrangelo .....The White House said Tuesday that it would take over which outlets are allowed into the press pool covering the president, wrestling such control from the White House Correspondents’ Association. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt said moving forward, the White House press pool, a small group of reporters that travels with and cover the president’s daily activities, will now be determined by administration officials. Traditionally, the press pool is coordinated by the Correspondents’ Association, which White House officials across multiple administrations have traditionally given deference to. “It’s beyond time the White House press pool reflects the media habits of the American people in 2025,” Leavitt said during a briefing with reporters. Ed. note: Related reading from Politico, "Trump personally decided to limit Associated Press' access to White House" is available here. The Hill: Trump threatens lawsuits, ‘NICE NEW LAW’ over anonymous sources in books By Alex Gangitano .....President Trump on Wednesday threatened lawsuits against authors who use anonymous sources in books about him or his allies, calling them defamatory and dishonest… “As a President who is being given credit for having the Best Opening Month of any President in history, quite naturally, here come the Fake books and stories with the so-called ‘anonymous,’ or ‘off the record,’ quotes,” he wrote on Truth Social. “At some point I am going to sue some of these dishonest authors and book publishers, or even media in general, to find out whether or not these ‘anonymous sources’ even exist, which they largely do not,” he added. Trump said consequences have to be paid for dishonesty, tying that with using anonymous sourcing. “They are made up, defamatory fiction, and a big price should be paid for this blatant dishonesty. I’ll do it as a service to our Country. Who knows, maybe we will create some NICE NEW LAW!!!” he said. DOJ Washingotn Times: FBI looking into Comey’s off-the-books ‘honeypot’ operation targeting 2016 Trump campaign By Kerry Picket .....FBI leadership is starting an investigation into the origins of the agency’s plan a decade ago to infiltrate the campaign of presidential candidate Donald Trump using two female undercover “honeypot” agents. The off-the-books investigation, launched in 2015 by FBI Director James B. Comey, was revealed by an agency whistleblower in a protected disclosure to the House Judiciary Committee last year and first reported exclusively by The Washington Times in October. In the intelligence community, a honeypot commonly refers to an undercover operative, usually a woman, who feigns sexual or romantic interest to obtain information from a target. The whistleblower said two female FBI undercover employees infiltrated Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign at high levels and were directed to act as “honeypots” while traveling with Mr. Trump and his campaign staff. The Times has learned that the bureau, now led by Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, is looking for those once-undercover employees under Mr. Comey’s direction. The FBI declined to comment. IRS Politico: IRS: Contractor leaked more than 400k returns By Bernie Becker .....The IRS told House Republicans this month that a former contractor leaked the private data of more than 400,000 taxpayers, nearly six times higher than originally thought. Doug O’Donnell, the acting IRS commissioner, told House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that the agency had informed 405,427 taxpayers that the contractor, Charles Littlejohn, had leaked information from their tax returns or other agency forms. The agency had said last year that it was telling around 70,000 businesses and individuals that Littlejohn had leaked their data. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison last year for the disclosures, which included returns for both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who’s currently leading a government downsizing effort. The New York Times reported on Trump’s returns, while ProPublica published stories on Musk and a number of other wealthy people. FEC Campaigns & Elections: What Can Political Pros Expect From the FEC This Year? Not a Lot, Experts say By Max Greenwood .....Political professionals are bracing for more gridlock at the Federal Election Commission even as President Donald Trump moves to assert more control over independent agencies. The six-person commission is now down to just four commissioners after its former Chair Sean Cooksey resigned last month and Trump moved to fire its new chair, longtime Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub in early February. Trump has yet to nominate replacements for Cooksey and Weintraub. That leaves the FEC with a bare quorum that’s evenly divided between two Republicans and two Democrats. Julie Sweet, the director of advocacy and industry relations at the American Association of Political Consultants, said that she has little hope that the FEC will take any real action when it comes to campaign finance enforcement or new regulations, at least for the time being. “I think that what we will likely see is kind of a continuation, which is that the FEC hasn’t taken a whole lot of enforcement actions as of late,” Sweet told C&E in an interview last week. “I think a broad swath of the administration – whether it’s from the FEC or public speeches – is that regulations are kind of off of the table.” FTC Cato: The FTC’s Doublethink Confuses Content Moderation, Censorship, and Expression By David Inserra .....The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced that it was requesting comments about “technology platform censorship.” The FTC letter suggests that social media content moderation may somehow be an unfair or deceptive trade practice or anti-competitive to justify the FTCs meddling in content moderation. But this framing of content moderation as censorship and the FTC as somehow protecting free speech is highly flawed. Indeed, it is entirely backward. Social media companies have the right (as confirmed by the Supreme Court last term in the Net Choice cases) to moderate their content as they see fit. When they choose to remove, demote, fact-check, or otherwise moderate content, companies are exercising their First Amendment to determine what kinds of speech they want to host and distribute, not to mention being protected from liability for such moderation by Section 230 of the Communications Act. And these companies often have rules or content policies in place that have been subject to significant internal debate about where to draw those lines. This was my job when I worked on Meta’s content policy team for four years. Free Expression Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Free Speech Unmuted: Freedom of the Press, with Floyd Abrams By Eugene Volokh .....Does the Free Press Clause provide extra rights to the institutional press, or instead protect all speakers' equal rights to use the printing press and its technological heirs? My cohost Jane Bambauer and I discuss this with legendary First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams. You can also watch our past episodes: City Journal: The Right Is Changing Cancel Culture’s Rules By Christopher F. Rufo .....All of this is salutary, but in this period of renegotiation, the Right must take a deeper look at the dynamics of social cancellation and adopt a systematic method for moving forward. The Right’s longstanding proposal—to “cancel cancel culture”—might make for a good slogan, but it is not sufficient as a governing philosophy. The reality is that one cannot cancel cancel culture. Rules of etiquette, propriety, and acceptability will always exist; people who violate a society’s core taboos will always risk exclusion. In other words, all cultures cancel. The question is, for what, and by whom. The States Fox 5 Atlanta: New bill could shield Georgia lawmakers' addresses from the public By Dan Raby .....A new proposal to change Georgia's campaign finance reporting could make it harder to find out where public officials live. Senate Bill 199 would revise the state's laws in connection with campaign and personal finance reports and adjust how the State Ethics Commission handles complaints. The legislation, sponsored by Republican Sen. Sam Watson, would make it so that the State Ethics Commission could not accept or reject any complaints made against candidates within 60 days of an election - doubling the number of days of the current 30-day policy. The bill would also reduce the number of campaign and personal finance disclosure reports candidates for local and state office would need to file from six to four. These reports would be due on Jan. 31, April 30, July 31, and Oct. 20. Once in office, officials would have to disclose information about their personal finances by no later than April 1. Lobbyists would need to file monthly disclosure reports before the fifth day of each month. The proposed legislation would also limit the information that the State Ethics Commission could release - requiring officials to redact any identifying home addresses from any records disclosed to the public. Fox 13: Mississippi city drops lawsuit over newspaper editorial that judge ordered removed By AP News .....A Mississippi city dropped its lawsuit Monday against a newspaper that had its editorial criticizing local leaders removed by a judge in a case that sparked widespread outrage from First Amendment advocates. The city of Clarksdale’s board of commissioners sought to dismiss its libel lawsuit against The Clarksdale Press Register, filing the request moments after its board of commissioners approved the move. The judge in the case must still dismiss her order that the editorial be removed from the paper’s website, which the city also asked her to do. She had originally set a hearing for Thursday in the case. “It’s still very, very wrong what they did and it awakened the entire First Amendment community nationally, which is very encouraging,” said Wyatt Emmerich, president of Emmerich Newspapers, the parent company of the paper. “I’m really excited to see how all these people rallied around us to protect our rights.” Chancery Judge Crystal Wise Martin issued the restraining order against the Press Register last week in connection with a Feb. 8 editorial titled “Secrecy, Deception Erode Public Trust.” The piece criticized the city for not sending the newspaper notice about a meeting the City Council held regarding a proposed tax on alcohol, marijuana and tobacco. 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