Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 28, 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]. In the News Concord Monitor: Bow parents ask federal court to allow them to protest wearing pink wristbands this spring By Sruthi Gopalakrishnan .....With winter sports finishing up and the spring season around the corner, a group of Bow parents is asking a federal court judge in New Hampshire to fast-track his decision on whether they can wear pink wristbands at school games to protest transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports. During the time the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire has taken to rule on the issue, the parents say they have “had to censor themselves when at Bow School District events to ensure that they would not get banned from school property,” according to a court document filed Wednesday. “Spring sports season is the last chance for plaintiffs to silently express their sociopolitical views at a Bow event this school year, and — because one of plaintiffs’ children is a high-school senior — the last chance to ever express their views at one child’s events,” the filing states. New from the Institute for Free Speech Institute for Free Speech: Arizona’s Proposition 211 Creates “An Indefensible Burden” on Free Speech Rights .....Restricting more people, more speech, and more time: Arizona’s Proposition 211 expands on previous donor disclosure laws in nearly every way—and violates the Arizona Constitution. That’s why the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief yesterday in Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State urging the Arizona Supreme Court to review the serious constitutional problems surrounding Arizona’s Proposition 211. The Institute argues that Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before, expanding on previous laws in almost every way. The brief notes that “[b]y expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 ‘accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.’” As a result, “that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic free speech violation.” Supreme Court SCOTUSblog (Relist Watch): Justices consider viewpoint challenges on “conversion therapy” and gender By John Elwood .....There are 106 petitions and applications scheduled for Friday’s conference, six of which were relisted for the first time this week. It is a big week for issue advocacy organizations – five of the six relists are cases brought by them. And it is a big week for First Amendment claims – four (really, five) of the six relists raise them. While we’re talking numbers, it was also a big week for challenges to the regulation of professionals – half of the relisted cases address such issues. ADF: Groups from across ideological spectrum support NJ pregnancy center harassed by state AG .....Pro-life pregnancy centers, along with numerous other organizations across the ideological spectrum, submitted friend-of-the-court briefs Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to hear the case First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are representing the faith-based, pro-life pregnancy center in an appeal to the Supreme Court asking it for the right to challenge an unconstitutional investigation by New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin in federal court. Platkin is targeting First Choice because of its faith-based, pro-life views and demanding that it identify—by name—the donors behind nearly 5,000 donations and produce up to 10 years of its internal, confidential documents. The First Amendment protects donor identities from unjustified disclosure and prohibits a state official for retaliating against speech with which he disagrees. Congress Daily Wire: Exclusive: Ted Cruz Subpoenas Big Tech Company He Says Targeted Conservatives By Brent Scher .....On Monday, Ted Cruz’s Senate Commerce Committee informed a massive online service provider called Bonterra that it intends to subpoena it for documents related to its actions that deplatformed a prominent conservative group. The company, which is used by nonprofits across the country to help fundraise and manage operations, was investigated by Cruz last year for cutting off service to the Independent Women’s Forum over claims that it violated the company’s terms of service. Cruz told The Daily Wire on Monday that its work laying out how Bonterra mistreated Independent Women’s Forum was just the beginning. He wants to see whether other conservative groups were victims of discrimination, and also understand how it was carried out. “I believe it is important that the Committee subpoena additional information to learn whether Bonterra blacklisted other conservative groups and to understand exactly how Big Tech crafts seemingly benign contract terms that exist solely to justify discrimination on the basis of politics,” Cruz said. FTC Reason: The FTC Has No Business Trying To Make Sure Social Media Are 'Fair' By Jacob Sullum .....Many Americans, including me, have had frustrating experiences with content moderation on social media platforms. Andrew Ferguson, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), wants us to know that such experiences are not just annoying or perplexing; they are "un-American" and "potentially illegal." Ferguson, who began soliciting complaints about "Big Tech censorship" last week, touts his initiative as a blow against "the tyranny of Big Tech" and "an important step forward in restoring free speech." But like Brendan Carr, the Trump-appointed chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ferguson is flexing his regulatory powers in a way that undermines freedom of speech by meddling in private editorial choices. Free Expression New York Times: The MAGA War on Speech By The Editorial Board .....Over the past month Mr. Trump and his allies have embarked on an expansive crackdown on free expression and disfavored speakers that should be decried not just as hypocritical but also as un-American and unconstitutional. In the distorted view of the Trump administration, protecting free speech requires controlling free speech — banning words, phrases and ideas that challenge or complicate a government-favored speech. Officials in Washington have spent the past month stripping federal websites of any hint of undesirable words and thoughts, disciplining news organizations that refuse to parrot the president’s language, and threatening to punish those who have voiced criticism of investigations and prosecutions. The Orwellian nature of this approach is deliberate and dangerous. This posture is not about protecting free speech. It is about prioritizing far-right ideology — and at times celebrating lies and hate speech under the guise of preventing the criminalization of language — while simultaneously trying to silence independent thought, inconvenient truths and voices of dissent. Wall Street Journal (LTE): The First Amendment Isn’t on Trump’s Side By Greg Lukianoff .....In “Trump vs. the AP: An American Standoff” (op-ed, Feb. 24), James Taranto asserts that the White House’s decision to block the Associated Press from press events doesn’t violate the First Amendment. Decades of legal precedent suggest otherwise. President Trump doesn’t have to speak to journalists he dislikes in one-on-one interviews. Nor is the White House obligated to hold press events open to multiple reporters. Once it does, however, it can’t constitutionally deny access for arbitrary or viewpoint-based reasons. Such is the case here: The AP lost access because Mr. Trump disagrees with its editorial choices. Fox News: Grandmother arrested for holding sign offering conversation outside Scottish hospital performing abortions By Kendall Tietz .....Scottish police arrested a 74-year-old grandmother on Thursday for offering conversation to women contemplating abortions because she was in a so-called buffer zone, which criminalizes pro-life speech. Just days after Vice President JD Vance warned European leaders about rising censorship at the Munich Security Conference, Rose Docherty was arrested in Glasgow, Scotland near the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital for holding a sign that said: "Coercion is a crime, here to talk if you want." Docherty was the first person to be arrested and charged under The Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, which went into effect in September 2024, the BBC reported. The law prohibits any protests or vigils from taking place within 200m or 656ft of 30 clinics offering abortion services in Scotland, but the law specifies that the Safe Access Zone could be extended if considered appropriate. Candidates and Campaigns New Jersey Globe: Gottheimer doesn’t deny that his congressional campaign is funding gubernatorial super PAC By Joey Fox .....Ever since a new super PAC called Affordable New Jersey started spending millions of dollars on ads supporting Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Tenafly)’s gubernatorial campaign, speculation has abounded that the PAC’s money is coming from Gottheimer’s own enormous congressional campaign account, which can’t spend directly on a state campaign. Gottheimer isn’t denying it... Because of the state’s campaign contribution limits for candidates accepting public financing, Gottheimer – or any member of Congress running for governor – would not have been able to directly send money from his congressional campaign into his gubernatorial account. A 2023 advisory opinion from the New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission (ELEC) strengthened that requirement further, advising candidates that coordinated expenditures from a federal campaign would still apply to state-level spending caps. But the (hypothetical) strategy of sending money from a congressional campaign into a super PAC, which faces no regulations on how much money it’s able to raise from a single source, does not appear to run afoul of any state campaign finance law... It’s a bit murkier, though, whether the FEC would take any issue with the strategy of funding an independent expenditure group with money from a congressional account. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-Montclair), Gottheimer’s House colleague and another candidate for governor, submitted a request for an advisory opinion from the FEC last month asking whether she would be allowed to send unlimited contributions to an independent expenditure group. (Sherrill could have in theory been asking for her own campaign, but since she ended 2024 with just $184,000 in her congressional account, it’s far more likely the request was designed to apply to Gottheimer.) The States Politico: The case of the missing $3M: Eric Adams’ campaign finance woes grow By Joe Anuta .....A mysterious $3 million sitting in Mayor Eric Adams’ reelection account is the latest irregularity giving campaign finance officials cause to deny him crucial public matching funds. The Campaign Finance Board broadened the criteria it used to deny Adams matching funds in a Feb. 18 letter POLITICO obtained through a Freedom of Information Law request. The board nixed Adams’ ask for $4.5 million in taxpayer-funded campaign dollars in December and has renewed its decision monthly. “The Campaign is not eligible for payment because the difference between the Campaign’s reported receipts and documented receipts is equal to or greater than [10 percent],” the communique said. The discrepancy was indeed greater: nearly 65 percent. New York Times: Mississippi Judge Lifts Order That Forced Newspaper to Remove an Editorial By Michael Levenson .....A Mississippi judge on Wednesday lifted an order she had issued that required a newspaper to remove an editorial from its website, ending a case that had drawn national attention from press advocates who said the order was a blatant violation of the First Amendment. The judge, Crystal Wise Martin of Hinds County Chancery Court, lifted the order after Clarksdale city officials voted earlier this week to abandon their libel lawsuit against the local paper, The Clarksdale Press Register. On Thursday, Wyatt Emmerich, the president of Emmerich Newspapers, which owns the The Press Register, said that he planned to republish the editorial at the center of the case. Colorado Politics: Appeals court says state campaign finance enforcement framework is constitutional By Michael Karlik .....Colorado's second-highest court agreed last week that the state's current method of adjudicating campaign finance complaints is constitutional and is not the "very definition of tyranny." For several years, state law has allowed any person to file a complaint alleging a campaign finance violation, which the Colorado Secretary of State's Office then screens, decides whether to dismiss or investigate, and potentially imposes a penalty. Legislators enacted the process after a federal judge decided in 2018 that the prior system unconstitutionally "outsourced" enforcement to individual, inexperienced complainants. Campaign Integrity Watchdog, an entity that regularly brings campaign finance complaints, argued to the Court of Appeals that the process enacted in the wake of the federal decision consolidated legislative, executive and judicial functions within "a single, partisan elected office." Therefore, it was the "very definition of tyranny." A three-judge appellate panel disagreed. "When, as here, the final agency decision is subject to judicial review, agency adjudicative procedures do not violate separation of powers principles," wrote Judge Daniel M. Taubman in the Feb. 20 opinion. "We are, in fact, reviewing the Secretary’s dismissal of Watchdog’s complaint in this very case." Tennessee Conservative: Controversial Campaign Finance Bill Makes Headway In Tennessee House By Olivia Lupia .....A campaign finance bill that could be detrimental to underfunded conservative candidates has passed the House Elections & Campaign Finance Subcommittee and now awaits an appearance before the full House State & Local Government Committee. SB0229/HB0653, sponsored by Senator Richard Briggs (R- Knoxville-District 7) and Rep. Tim Hicks (R-Gray-District 6), is a six-page bill that makes numerous changes to campaign finance law, supposedly originally brought to Briggs by the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance. Per previous Tennessee Conservative News reporting, the bill’s required changes may prove harmful to conservatives, especially given the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance (TREF) board’s penchant for targeting conservative candidates and organizations. The bill ultimately funnels more money toward the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance and makes other subtle yet extensive shifts to the already complicated laws surrounding campaign and political finance. Some proposed changes in the bill include: 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