Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech March 4, 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]. New from the Institute for Free Speech Comments to the Department of Justice on FARA Regulations By David Keating .....On March 3, 2025, the Institute for Free Speech responded to a notice of proposed rulemaking and wrote comments to the Department of Justice on the implications of the proposed changes to the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 in relationship to American’s First Amendment rights. Read a PDF of the comments here. Supreme Court Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Supreme Court Refuses to Consider Whether University "Bias-Response Teams" Chill Speech By Jonathan H. Adler .....The Supreme Court does not hear many cases these days. It is very stingy in granting certiorari, even in cases that present clear circuit splits. This morning's Order List provides a good example, as the Court denied certiorari in Speech First v. Whitten, which presented the question whether university "bias-response teams" objectively chill students' speech under the First Amendment (and, as a consequence, whether there is Article III standing to challenge them). Only two justices (Alito and Thomas) indicated their desire to hear this case. One, Justice Thomas, wrote a dissent from the cert denial. It begins: The Federalist: Why SCOTUS Should Nuke ‘No-Speech Zones’ Once And For All By Thomas Olp .....In May 2023, Thomas More Society attorneys took Carbondale to federal court on behalf of Coalition Life, knowing full well this case would eventually need to knock at the doors of the Supreme Court. That’s because lower courts are bound by Hill, a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that permitted certain types of no-speech zones, such as Carbondale’s. In Hill, the court upheld a Colorado law making it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of an abortion business entrance to “knowingly approach” another person within 8 feet, without that person’s consent, to engage in sidewalk counseling. Egregiously wrong since the day it was decided, the high court has steadily eroded the precedent’s shaky foundations. In Dobbs, the Supreme Court sounded the death knell for Hill — calling it out for having “distorted First Amendment doctrines” — but has yet to put the final nail in the coffin. In dissenting from Monday’s denial, Justice Clarence Thomas did not mince words. “Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote. Indeed, the court’s “abdication” of its duty opens the door to further restrictions on pro-life speech nationwide. The Courts New York Post: Controversial Muslim charity accused of links to Hamas settles lawsuit rather than disclosing sources of funding By Isabel Vincent .....A Washington-based Muslim nonprofit, which is one of the largest operating across the US, agreed this week to settle a case brought by a former board member and employee rather than open its books to reveal sources of foreign funding, The Post has learned. Evidence in past court proceedings has shown links between The Council on American-Islamic Relations Foundation Inc. and both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. CAIR Inc. settled with Lori Saroya Thursday, months after US Magistrate Judge David Schultz ruled any assets owned by the group are all within the “scope of permissible discovery” as part of the former Minnesota chapter leader’s lawsuit against the controversial Muslim rights group. Trump Administration New York Post: Trump vows to yank federal funding from all US schools that allow ‘illegal protests’ — and imprison agitators By Emily Crane .....President Trump threatened Tuesday to halt all federal funds for any educational institute that allows “illegal protests” — and vowed that agitators will be unmasked and imprisoned. The commander in chief issued the warning as disruptive anti-Israel and pro-Hamas demonstrations have rocked college campuses across the country. “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests,” Trump, 76, wrote in an early Truth Social post. “Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested.” “NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he added. The threat also comes a day after his administration vowed to pull more than $50 million in government contracts from Columbia University due to the Ivy League’s alleged inaction on clamping down on anti-Israel protests. Congress New York Times: 2 Democrats Begin Investigation of Move to Drop Adams Charges By Liam Stack .....Two top Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have begun an investigation into the Justice Department’s request to drop federal criminal charges against Mayor Eric Adams of New York. They accused the department of covering up a quid pro quo agreement between the Trump administration and the mayor. In a letter on Sunday to Attorney General Pam Bondi, the lawmakers, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jasmine Crockett of Texas, cited an account provided by Danielle Sassoon, who resigned as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan over the department’s request. They said her resignation letter indicated that the administration may have agreed to “a blatant and illegal quid pro quo” with Mr. Adams: It would seek to have the case dropped, and Mr. Adams would assist in carrying out the administration’s immigration policy. Washington Post (Tech Brief): Melania Trump joins push for law on deepfakes, nonconsensual porn By Will Oremus .....A bill aimed at criminalizing nonconsensual sexual imagery and forcing online platforms to take it down got a big boost from the White House on Monday. Reviving the “Be Best” online safety campaign she started in President Donald Trump’s first term, first lady Melania Trump held a Capitol Hill roundtable with lawmakers and victims of online sexual abuse to tout the Take It Down Act. They urged the House to take up and pass the bill, which has already passed the Senate, so that Trump can sign it into law… While there’s broad agreement that new laws are needed to address NCII, some advocacy groups and First Amendment scholars say Take It Down is the wrong approach. “NCII is a serious problem, but unfortunately this isn’t a serious bill,” said Matt Lane, senior policy counsel at the digital rights group Fight for the Future. He said it threatens end-to-end encryption, a tool for private communication, and fails to address concerns that people will abuse the takedown process. “Anyone that knows how to exploit the system can have any image they do not like removed, not just intimate images,” Lane said. India McKinney, director of federal affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, called it “a censorship bill” that will lead platforms to take down all kinds of legitimate content because they won’t have time to sift the valid takedown requests from the malicious ones. The bill’s takedown provisions could face a First Amendment challenge if they become law. The Media The Hill: LA Times to give op-eds AI-generated political rating, list of alternate views By Elizabeth Crisp .....The Los Angeles Times has launched a feature driven by artificial intelligence (AI) that will appear with some opinion content to help readers identify potential bias, owner and Executive Chair Patrick Soon-Shiong announced Monday. “The purpose of Insights is to offer readers an instantly accessible way to see a wide range of different AI-enabled perspectives alongside the positions presented in the article,” Soon-Shiong wrote in a letter to readers, touting the move and other initiatives as “the next evolution of the L.A. Times to better engage with our audience.” “I believe providing more varied viewpoints supports our journalistic mission and will help readers navigate the issues facing this nation,” he added. The new tech tool, which has been referred to as a “bias meter,” faced backlash when the plan was first discussed in December, but Soon-Shiong defended the plan. The States New Jersey Monitor: N.J. Supreme Court hears reporter’s challenge to law limiting publication of officials’ addresses By Nikita Biryukov .....Attorneys for press advocates and for New Brunswick met in front of the New Jersey Supreme Court Monday as the justices decide whether a state law meant to shield the addresses of some public officials can bar a reporter from publishing information gleaned through documents provided by the government. Charlie Kratovil, editor of New Brunswick Today, is seeking to enjoin the city’s officials from using the statute — called Daniel’s Law — to limit his reporting, saying their invocation of the law to warn of civil and criminal penalties had violated First Amendment protections on free speech. “This case asks a simple question about whether the government can provide information to a reporter, then later attempt to punish the reporter for reporting that same information in a story about an issue of public concern. It cannot,” said attorney Alexander Shalom, who represented Kratovil. Tennessee Conservative: Campaign Finance Bill That Could Be Detrimental To Conservatives & To All Tennesseans To Be Heard In Committee By Paula Gomes .....A campaign finance bill that has the potential to be detrimental to underfunded conservative campaigns will be heard in the House State and Local Government Committee on Wednesday, March 5th, 2025. Sponsored by Representative Tim Hicks (R-Gray-District 6), the six pages of House Bill 0653 (HB0653) makes numerous changes to existing state law with regard to the financing of political campaigns. Senate sponsor of the corresponding Senate Bill 0229 (SB0229) Richard Briggs (R-Knoxville-District 7) was asked to carry the bill by the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance. The bill’s proposed changes may prove harmful to conservatives who are running for political office in light of the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance (TREF) board’s penchant for targeting true conservative candidates and organizations. While the bill funnels more money toward the Bureau of Ethics and Campaign Finance, and makes other subtle yet extensive shifts to the state’s complicated campaign finance laws, there may be more to the bill than initially meets the eye. According to an article published last week by The Tennessee Journal, the ultimate aim of the bill is to invite a lawsuit that will lead to the demolition of all PAC contribution limits. The Oregonian: Portland voters approved a strict campaign finance law. A city watchdog wants to soften it By Shane Dixon Kavanaugh .....Portland’s elected watchdog is pushing to upend significant portions of the city’s pioneering campaign finance law, alarming advocates who have worked to curb the influence of money in politics. City Auditor Simone Rede wants the mayor and City Council to take actions that would allow potential changes to Portland’s voter-approved campaign contribution limits and disclosure requirements, either by allowing state law to preempt the city’s stricter rules or by proposing a local ballot measure this fall… In a statement, Rede said the effort would allow Portland to better align with Oregon’s new campaign finance law when it takes effect in two years. She also insisted the changes would ultimately make the city’s campaign finance rules easier for candidates and donors to follow and for the city to enforce… Dan Meek, an attorney and leader of the good government group Honest Elections Oregon, said the auditor’s claims strained credulity. “They make absolutely zero sense from the point of view of the public,” said Meek, an instrumental player behind the creation of Portland and Oregon’s campaign finance limits. “They’d destroy the city’s entire system.” 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