Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech October 23, 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]. Ed. note: The Media Update will return Tuesday, Oct. 28. In the News Maine Morning Star: Latest filing in campaign finance court battle argues Maine has legal right to regulate super PACs By Emma Davis .....The next piece of the puzzle for the group hoping to get the U.S. Supreme Court to establish greater regulations on money in elections was laid on Wednesday. [T]wo expected appeals were filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston after a federal district court in July ruled that a 2024 Maine law overwhelmingly passed by voters was unconstitutional. The law placed limits on contributions to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates, commonly referred to as super PACs. The brief filed early evening Wednesday is from the committee behind the referendum, Republican-turned-independent state Sen. Rick Bennett and the nonprofit Equal Citizens, spearheaded by legal scholar Lawrence Lessig who has been attempting to bring this issue to the high court for years. Another... from Attorney General Aaron Frey on behalf of the state [has also been filed.]… Charles Miller of the Institute for Free Speech and Joshua Dunlap of Pierce Atwood (now-nominee for the First Circuit) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maine in 2024 on behalf of Dinner Table Action, which was founded by state Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn) and activist Alex Titcomb, and For Our Future, which is run by Titcomb. They argue that the law restricts free speech. The Courts Courthouse News: First Circuit ends Jewish students’ lawsuit over Gaza protests at MIT By Erik Uebelacker .....The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has beaten a discrimination lawsuit from a pro-Israel group and two Jewish students, who claimed that the prestigious college didn’t do enough to quell pro-Palestine protests that made them feel unsafe on campus. The First Circuit ruled Tuesday that the students’ accusations “do not plausibly rise to the level of actionable harassment” required for federal law, affirming a lower court’s ruling that dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim. “Even if the protestors’ conduct as a whole was actionable harassment … MIT is not liable because it was not deliberately indifferent to the effects of the protests on Jewish and Israeli students,” the three-judge panel ruled. The trio of judges behind the ruling were U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, a Barack Obama appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Gustavo Gelpí, a Joe Biden appointee and U.S. District Judge William Smith, a George W. Bush appointee who joined the panel via designation. They noted that they did not find Title VI, the federal law preventing racial discrimination on school grounds, to require “a university to quash protected speech.” Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Conservative Activist Robby Starbuck Alleges Massive Defamation by Google AI By Eugene Volokh .....From the Complaint in Starbuck v. Google (not to be confused with the now-settled Starbuck v. Meta, which appears to have involved a different model and at least largely different hallucinations): Politico: Appeals court judges — including a Trump appointee — voice doubt over Trump’s bid to deport Mahmoud Khalil By Erica Orden .....A three-judge panel from the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from government lawyers seeking to overturn a lower court’s order releasing Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., from detention in Louisiana and finding that the Trump administration’s application of the law was likely unconstitutional. Washington Post: Author Michael Wolff sues Melania Trump, saying she threatened $1B suit over Epstein-related claims By Larry Neumeister, AP .....Author Michael Wolff claims in a lawsuit that First Lady Melania Trump threatened to sue him for over $1 billion in damages if he didn’t retract Jeffrey Epstein -related statements he recently made about her. Wolff sought unspecified damages in the lawsuit filed Tuesday in state Supreme Court in Manhattan. Congress Senate Committee on Finance: Wyden, Schumer, Warren Sound Alarm Over Trump Weaponization of the IRS Against the Free Speech Rights of Trump Opponents .....Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) today demanded answers about the Trump administration’s reported plans to weaponize the IRS criminal-investigative division in an attack on the free speech rights of progressive individuals and groups the president sees as opponents. Joined by all the Democratic members of the Finance Committee, the Senators noted that politically motivated interference in the administration of tax law is prohibited under federal law and can result in criminal penalties including incarceration. They sought to learn who has directed and participated in this IRS weaponization, what changes the administration intends to make to IRS policy, and what individuals and groups the administration is targeting as part of this abusive, illegal weaponization scheme. Free Expression Wall Street Journal: The University Elite, Reconsidered By The Editorial Board .....The Manhattan Institute’s City Journal looked at 100 colleges, assessing them on qualities that many students and families are concerned about, including free speech, the school’s approach to politics on campus, and students’ professional success after graduation. Schools that have demonstrated ideological pluralism among the faculty received higher marks. Same for a vibrant and inclusive campus social life. Student tolerance for controversial speakers was another plus. The rankings also look closely at the strength of the general curriculum and whether the university is providing excellence or coasting on a fancy reputation. Politico Magazine: My Bosses Were Afraid of Crossing Trump. So, I Quit. By Alan Greenblatt .....The censorship you never hear about may be the worst, or at least the most insidious. Thankfully, many journalists are speaking out at a crucial moment for the press. Virtually every major outlet refused the Pentagon’s edict that they publish or broadcast only information handed to them by the Department of Defense (which the administration calls the Department of War). And there have been several other examples just in recent days of journalists leaving their jobs in response to censorship pressures. Let me add my name to that list. Until Oct. 10, I was the editor of Governing, a magazine and website covering state and local governments. But after facing increasing internal censorship pressures — largely to avoid critical coverage of President Donald Trump — I refused to go along, and I resigned. Cato: Cato Free Speech Debate .....Online platforms have created unprecedented opportunities for individuals to share ideas and reach wider audiences. Supporters of these platforms point to how they have reduced barriers to participation, providing new and creative opportunities for discourse and connection. Critics, however, raise concerns that these platforms can allow the spread of misinformation, the amplification of offensive speech, or the power of private companies to shape which voices are heard and which are silenced. The internet has become a central arena in debates about the scope and limits of free expression. Online Speech Platforms Washington Post (Tech Brief): Coalition of Nobel Prize winners and celebrities demand a stop to “superintelligence” technology By Will Oremus .....On Wednesday, a coalition of Nobel Prize winners, policymakers and celebrities challenged Silicon Valley’s vision of a future where “superintelligence” will outperform humans. The statement, coordinated by the nonprofit Future of Life Institute, comes at a time when AI advancements and regulations are at the center of Washington’s conversations, write tech reporters Gerrit De Vynck and Will Oremus. The public statement, signed by more than 1,100 signatories including AI researchers, Prince Harry, former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon and the Obama administration’s national security adviser, Susan Rice. The statement called for the ban of the development of superintelligence unless there is a strong public buy-in and consensus that the technology can be made safe. Bloomberg via Archive Today: Dutch Far Right Gets Unexpected Boost From AI, Political Ad Ban By Patrick Van Oosterom .....Across the EU, politicians, academics and activists worry that the moratorium robs moderate voices of one of their main ways of reaching voters online, while leaving the ground open for the divisive and extreme content that is often rewarded by platforms’ algorithms. In the Netherlands, the first country in the bloc to go to the polls since the ban began, the biggest winner is likely to be the far-right Freedom Party, whose leader Geert Wilders has built his brand on viral shock campaigns and stunts, using outrage to get his content in front of users. “Political ads are strongly used by mainstream political parties to cut through the algorithmic noise that often favors clickbait or polarizing messaging,” Fabio Votta, a political communication scholar at the University of Amsterdam, said. Cutting off that avenue leaves the ground open for “those that polarize and incite,” Votta said. Original article The States Washington Post: Virginia GOP candidate stages ‘debate’ against AI-generated opponent By Erin Cox .....After his Democratic opponent declined all of his debate requests in the Virginia lieutenant governor race, Republican John Reid decided he’d hold a 40-minute one anyway — against a version of her generated by artificial intelligence. The fake voice of state Sen. Ghazala F. Hashmi (D-Richmond) got to make the first opening statement. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Bill to codify definition of antisemitism in Wisconsin law faces pushback over First Amendment concerns By Laura Schulte and Hope Karnopp .....A bill that aims to codify in Wisconsin law a definition of antisemitism faced opposition in a public hearing, with some speakers arguing it could infringe on First Amendment rights to criticize the actions of the Israeli government in Palestine. The October 22 legislative hearing drew a large turnout of speakers, necessitating an overflow room. At times the atmosphere was tense, and committee chair Rep. Rob Swearingen, R-Rhinelander, reminded those in the audience to remain silent during testimony. The bill, if passed and signed into law, would require that state and local governments use the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016: 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