Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech April 22, 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 Fox News: Texas legislation could weaken protections against frivolous lawsuits, warn free speech advocates By David Rutz .....Under the TCPA, a speaker who had been sued in a SLAPP case that was dismissed would receive attorney's fees and costs, and the law also allowed the court to award sanctions against the plaintiff. However, HB 2988 would make the awarding of attorney's fees discretionary instead of mandatory, and potentially put a defendant on the hook for the plaintiff's legal fees at a judge's discretion. The TCPA also includes an automatic stay of discovery, meaning defendants using its protections can avoid the arduous and intrusive process of exchanging information, documents and other materials before a trial. SB 336, which has an identical companion bill in the House, HB 2459, would repeal that provision that stays discovery and trial in a SLAPP case "until such time that an appeals court has ruled, if asked to do so, on an anti-SLAPP motion," according to an article in the Institute for Free Speech. Liberty Unyielding: “Bonkers” ruling: Judge wrongly rules fathers can’t wear pink wristbands to protest biological males in girls’ sports By Hans Bader .....A federal judge ruled that two fathers can’t wear pink wristbands that say “XX” to silently protest the inclusion in women’s sports of biologically-male transgender students. Bizarrely, the judge wrote, “The message generally ascribed to the XX symbol, in a context such as that presented here, can reasonably be understood as directly assaulting those who identify as transgender women.” The ruling is “bonkers,” notes former deputy assistant attorney general Ed Whelan. The Well News: Despite the Hype, Campaign Cash Doesn't Buy Elections By Peter Russo .....Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race revealed money’s limitations on a grand scale. Judge Susan Crawford defeated former Attorney General Brad Schimel despite facing an unprecedented financial onslaught. Elon Musk personally invested over $21 million to defeat Crawford, even traveling to Wisconsin to hand out million-dollar checks to those who signed a petition. This extraordinary intervention failed spectacularly, with Crawford winning by eight points. New from the Institute for Free Speech School District to Pay Over $150,000 after Censoring Parent .....Following a lengthy legal dispute, the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming has awarded attorneys’ fees totaling $156,000 to the litigation team representing Harry Pollak of Sheridan County. Mr. Pollak was represented by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan and local counsel Seth Johnson. Free Speech Arguments – Can the White House Ban Outlets from the Press Pool? (Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich) .....Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 17, 2025. Argued by Eric D. McArthur (on behalf of Appellants Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of Appellee Associated Press). Lawyers for the Trump administration are seeking a stay on the DC District Court’s preliminary injunction rescinding “the denial of the AP’s access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other limited spaces based on the AP’s viewpoint.” FEC Federal Election Commission: Statement of Commissioner Allen J. Dickerson Regarding Advisory Opinion 2025-06 (Campaign Legal Center) .....Advisory opinions, in other words, are “shields, not swords.” They are intended to protect participants in the political process who wish to know – in advance – that undertaking a specific “transaction or activity” will not make them the target of enforcement action by the Commission or their political and ideological opponents. Advisory Opinion 2025-06 is an exception. Rather than seeking the shield of FEC guidance, the Requestor seeks to use the advisory opinion process as a sword to wield against a specific executive order. But, as the sophisticated lawyers representing the Requestor doubtless know, the Commission may only opine on the “applicability of the Act” to a specific “activity or transaction.” An executive order is not the Act, and so the FEC may not lawfully opine upon its application. Such questions are for the courts. Ed. note: Read our comments to the FEC suggesting that the Commission decline to issue an opinion here. Read a comment from Campaign Legal Center, who requested the advisory opinion, complaining that the advisory opinion is unlawful because the FEC acted too quickly, here. Trump Administration Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Can Harvard Lose Tax Exemption for "Pushing Political, Ideological, and Terrorist Inspired/Supporting 'Sickness'"? By Eugene Volokh .....President Trump suggested on April 15 that: "Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting "Sickness?" Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!" The IRS is apparently planning something along those lines, though the details are unclear. But, if Harvard was indeed stripped of its tax exemption because of the "political, ideological, and terrorist inspired" views that it "push[es]," would that be consistent with the First Amendment? (I set aside here the separate question whether there may be federal statutory or administrative law constraints applicable here.) The answer is "no," as I argued to a Democrat-controlled House subcommittee in 2019, and before that in 2016 (and as Dale Carpenter elaborated on in 2019). Like other such programs that protect a wide range of private speech in order to serve the "public interest," the government can't define the scope of the program or the term "public interest" in a way that turns on the viewpoint that the speaker expresses. My testimony focused on calls for stripping tax exemptions from groups that allegedly engaged in "hate speech," but the same analysis applies to other viewpoint-based denials as well. Free Expression Washington Post: Criticize your child’s school? In Britain, that could land you in jail. By Andrew Doyle .....A recent report by the Times newspaper in Britain found that police are making at least 12,000 arrests per year — more than 30 every day — under “hate speech” laws that are codified in Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 and Section 127 of the Communications Act of 2003. The latter specifically relates to online speech, and it prohibits not only messages of “an indecent, obscene or menacing character” but also words intended to cause “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety.” Depending on one’s sensibilities, the description could apply to virtually any post on social media. In January, six police officers were dispatched to arrest two parents in Hertfordshire, north of London, for criticizing, in emails and a WhatsApp group, the administration of their daughter’s school. Candidates and Campaigns New York Times: Trump Raised $239 Million for Inauguration, More Than Doubling His Own Record By Theodore Schleifer .....President Trump raised $239 million for his inauguration festivities in January, a norm-shattering amount fueled by corporate America’s desire to curry favor with a famously transactional president. The total, disclosed in a filing with the Federal Election Commission on Sunday, is more than double the previous record of $107 million set by Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee in 2017. About 140 different people or companies gave at least $1 million to the effort, including blue-chip companies like JPMorgan Chase, Delta Air Lines and Target. The States The Daily Signal: Bill Makes It Easier to Silence Those Speaking Out on Public Concerns By James Bopp, Jr. .....Texans for Lawsuit Reform’s mission statement says it was founded to “fight back against job-killing, abusive lawsuits” and “shut down new abuses of the legal system.” But the so-called tort reform group makes an exception when it comes to one kind of tort: the kind that lets the powerful silence their critics through lawfare. The group is leading the charge at the Texas Legislature to weaken the Texas Citizens Participation Act, a 13-year-old law designed to stop frivolous SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). SLAPP lawsuits are often baseless defamation suits filed to punish individuals or organizations for speaking out on matters of public concern. Center Square Illinois: Legislation to protect public university press could provide 'blanket immunity' By Jim Talamonti .....The Illinois Senate has passed legislation to expand freedom-of-the-press protections for public media on college campuses, despite concerns about lawsuit immunity. State Sen. David Koehler, D-Peoria, sponsored Senate Bill 1988, which would amend the College Campus Press Act. State Sen. Jil Tracy, R-Quincy, asked Koehler if college media didn’t think the First Amendment of the Constitution would protect them. “This grew out of their desire to make sure that the First Amendment was protecting them. I don’t know what to say to that. Again, I’m bringing this forward because they seemed to think they needed it,” Koehler said. Sen. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, told Koehler that one provision of the bill could allow blanket immunity for state actors. Inforum: North Dakota House passes campaign finance bill changing deadlines, donor disclosures By Grant Coursey .....The North Dakota House of Representatives on Friday, April 18, passed a number of changes to campaign finance disclosures. Senate Bill 2156 was introduced by Sen. Sean Cleary, R-Bismarck, but has been amended by both the Senate and House since its introduction… It also raises the bar for when a contributor must be disclosed by a political candidate from those who donated $200 to those who have donated over $250 in aggregate during a reporting period. However, it makes it so the contributor no longer needs to be identified by their name and full address. Instead, they simply need to be identified by name, city and state… The bill passed the House in a 85-5 vote. It previously passed the Senate with a unanimous 45-0 vote. It now goes back to the Senate for a vote of concurrence. Louser indicated on the House floor that the bill would likely be going to a conference committee. 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