December 17, 2025

Ed. note: the Media Update will return Tuesday, January 6. Wishing you and yours a joyful holiday season and a Happy New Year. See you in 2026!

Supreme Court

Reason: A Texas News Vlogger Asks SCOTUS To Decide Whether Criminalizing Journalism Is 'Obviously Unconstitutional'

By Jacob Sullum

.....Priscilla Villarreal was not arrested for "merely asking questions," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton insists in a brief urging the Supreme Court to reject the Laredo news vlogger's petition for review of her First Amendment case. Yet that is literally what happened to Villarreal in 2017, and the precedent set by that incident poses a threat to journalists across the country.

NH Journal: Free Speech, Free Parties, Free Candidates

By Bill O'Brien

.....If coordinated caps fall, candidates of modest means who have persuaded their party they are the best standard-bearers will no longer be told, “Sorry, we’ve hit the legal limit.” Parties will still be subject to disclosure rules. Direct contributions to candidates will still be limited. Bribery will still be a crime. But what will change is that transparent, regulated political parties, not just obscure super PACs, can be primary vehicles for campaign speech. And as a result, we will get better candidates.

It is telling who rushed in to defend the current speech gag. The Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) have joined the case to prop up the limits. 

The Courts

Daily Signal: Exclusive: How Trump’s ‘Convicted Felon’ Label Could Soon Vanish

By Fred Lucas

.....Almost two years after a Democrat-elected prosecutor secured a conviction against then-candidate Donald Trump, a New York appeals court could decide soon on the appeal of the Manhattan felony conviction.

“There is no upside for the courts to string this along. So, we could see a ruling soon,” said Dan Backer, counsel for the watchdog group Coolidge Reagan Foundation, who co-wrote an amicus brief filed Monday and first shared with The Daily Signal.

The brief, filed in the First Department Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, calls for reversal of Trump’s conviction. 

New York Times: Trump Files $10 Billion Suit Against BBC Over Documentary

By Michael D. Shear

.....President Trump sued the BBC for $10 billion on Monday evening over the editing in a documentary that the British broadcaster said had left the “mistaken impression” that he called for violent action before the storming of the U.S. Capitol.

In a 46-page lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami, Mr. Trump accused the BBC of defaming him and violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. He demanded $5 billion for each offense.

New York Times: Greenpeace’s Fight With Pipeline Giant Exposes a Legal Loophole

By Karen Zraick

.....As Greenpeace and the pipeline company Energy Transfer have fought a series of bruising court battles — including one that could bankrupt Greenpeace in the United States — a little-known organization filed what’s known as a “friend-of-the-court” brief with the North Dakota Supreme Court.

The organization, Grow America’s Infrastructure Now, or GAIN, urged the court in its November brief to prevent Greenpeace from filing a lawsuit against Energy Transfer in another country. GAIN argued that Greenpeace was trying to “relitigate” its case after suffering a startling defeat in a trial in Mandan, N.D., this year, when a jury held three Greenpeace entities liable for some $670 million in damages over their role in protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline nearly a decade ago…

Friend-of-the-court briefs, or amicus briefs, are increasingly being used as a litigation tactic rather than for their intended purpose, said Renee Knake Jefferson, a law professor at the University of Houston. The filings are supposed to offer “additional concerns the court should consider,” but often one party is “going behind the cloak of the amicus brief to continue its own advocacy,” Ms. Jefferson said.

Austin American-Statesman: Lawsuits seek to block Texas app store age verification, parental consent law

By Karoline Leonard

.....Two lawsuits are asking a federal judge to block a new Texas law that would require app stores to verify users’ ages and impose restrictions on those under 18.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman heard arguments Tuesday in a pair of lawsuits seeking a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 2420, the App Store Accountability Act, which is set to take effect Jan. 1. 

The lawsuits — filed in October by the Computer & Communications Industry Association and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas, along with two Texas teens — hinge on what the plaintiffs describe as the act’s content-based restrictions, which they argue violate free speech rights and pose potential privacy and safety risks.

Trump Administration

Washington Post: The lunacy of asking tourists to turn over their social media history

By Editorial Board

.....Your papers, please – and tweets, too. This could soon be a new requirement if you want to visit the United States.

Customs and Border Protection filed notice this week that it plans to require tourists from the 42 countries who otherwise can enter without a visa to start sharing their social media activity from the last five years, as well as any email addresses that have been active for the past 10 years. That’s in addition to the names, birth dates, places of residence and birthplaces of parents, spouses, siblings and children.

Giving extra scrutiny to visitors from dangerous countries is defensible, but why does the government need to conduct background checks on every visitor from the U.K., Australia, Japan and South Korea?

This move flows from President Donald Trump’s order that visitors coming into the country, and those already here, must “not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.” No one wants to open the door to visitors who mean to harm Americans upon arrival. But what exactly are the criteria for “hostile attitudes”? Is the Department of Homeland Security screening for X users who frequently share “Death to America,” critical memes of Trump – or both? Does advocating for election interference weigh against a visitor as heavily as lamenting an election result?

Politico: The White House’s unabashed embrace of AI

By Diana Nerozzi

.....President Donald Trump as the pope, planting a U.S. flag on Canada and dropping a load of feces on liberal social media influencer Harry Sisson.

The White House is bullish on making artificial intelligence a regular part of its communications strategy – and officials say they are embracing the technology with the potential to bend reality.

“We will utilize any tool we can – even if that means AI – to fill out content,” a White House official told POLITICO, granted anonymity to discuss communication strategy…

“It’s like, do you want to spend eight hours on Photoshop doing a graphic, or do you want to spend five minutes on AI doing a graphic? It saves us time, it makes us more nimble. So, it streamlines a lot of things for us,” the White House official said.

Free Expression

RealClear Politics: Gingrich: Going After People Who Have Been Radicalized Requires Rethinking Parts Of The First Amendment

By Ian Schwartz

.....Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told FOX News host Laura Ingraham that the country has no clear strategy for addressing radicalization and said a "totally new approach" is needed…

GINGRICH: Well, I think it is spreading because we have no strategy for going after people who have been radicalized. That's the key in Gaza. That's the key in Syria.

That's the key in the United States. We have to have a totally new approach, and that requires rethinking parts of the First Amendment and asking yourself, if somebody is preaching death, do they really have a right to do that? And we have no people who are being trained.

We also underestimate the power of social media and the degree to which people are being recruited psychologically on the Internet. These are going to be tough conversations, but every week we're going to be reminded somewhere on the planet if somebody's killed. And this is not going away. This requires defeating them, not ignoring them.

INGRAHAM: Are you proposing a crackdown on civil liberties like free expression and the First Amendment to try to fight this, Newt? I'm not proposing that. I'm proposing if you're inciting violence, you should be arrested and taken into custody. But it has to be inciting violence. Otherwise, you can see this is going to be turned on conservatives at any moment.

GINGRICH: Well, it depends on what you're talking about. I mean, I don't think conservatives go around and incite violence. If you have somebody who is preaching, go out and kill people. I think that's not clear. It's not clear to me. Oh, that's incitement. It's covered. Well, that's what I'm saying. I think you'll find in almost every one of these cases, there were people urging them to go kill people.

And I think, as you know, there are increasing restrictions on people under 16 having access to an unlimited social network, which has a very high level of violence and a very high level of drug use. And all these things come back together in a way we have to be honest about.

Politico (Digital Future Daily): How free speech is wrecking the ‘special relationship’

By Aaron Mak

.....Disagreement over the regulation of online speech is weakening the bonds of America’s “special relationship” with the United Kingdom, and the conflict couldn’t come at a worse time.

This transatlantic disagreement is the result of political swings that were almost perfectly teed up to smash into each other. President Donald Trump’s return to office emboldened Republicans to pressure platforms into loosening their moderation policies this year. That campaign gained steam just as the U.K.’s landmark Online Safety Act, which is designed to protect kids from harmful social media content, went into force in July. The OSA requires even U.S.-based platforms to age gate violent and hateful posts available in the U.K.

The States

North Dakota Monitor: North Dakota attorney general voids ethics opinion, says agency lacked authority

By Jacob Orledge

.....North Dakota’s attorney general says a recent Ethics Commission advisory opinion related to campaign finance law is void, arguing the agency exceeded its authority.

Attorney General Drew Wrigley, in a legal opinion issued late Friday, said the Ethics Commission has no authority to issue an opinion based on general questions of law. 

The 15-page opinion relates to guidance the Ethics Commission issued in June, responding to questions from a Fargo lawmaker about whether campaign funds can be used to pay for a candidate’s child care or security expenses. The commission said in an advisory opinion that campaign funds can be used for child care and security in some instances. 

North Dakota Monitor: Committee names new member to North Dakota Ethics Commission, ending impasse

By Mary Steurer

.....North Dakota leaders appointed Jared Huibregtse to the North Dakota Ethics Commission on Tuesday, ending a nearly two-month stalemate over who to appoint to an open four-year seat on the commission.