Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 6, 2026 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 Center Square (Opinion): Op-Ed: Setting the record straight on campaign finance By Bradley A. Smith .....The Washington Post’s recent series on campaign finance, beginning with the frighteningly titled “How billionaires took over American politics,” offers a dramatic narrative about money in politics. Unfortunately, the initial article predictably misunderstands campaign finance law and misrepresents the actual data regarding political spending. As someone who has spent decades studying and implementing campaign finance law, including serving as the chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), I believe readers deserve a more accurate picture. This includes recognizing the reality that, whatever one thinks of campaign finance regulations, such regulations are inherently restrictions on free political speech. The Gazette: Dorman is wrong on nonprofit donations By David Keating .....Todd Dorman’s recent column hastily dismisses donor privacy concerns, implying that the constitutional arguments against nonprofit donor disclosure are merely a pretense that allows a conservative “posse” to hide their political views and weaken “democracy.” He references my organization, the Institute for Free Speech, and our support for such arguments. He uses a vague “protecting democracy” rationale to justify why supporters of 501(c)(3) nonprofits should have their donations made public. In Dorman’s own words: “Conservatives, especially, want to keep donations confidential. That way, when they donate to efforts outlawing abortion rights, targeting transgender Americans or boosting Donald Trump the fat fraidy cats won’t get ‘canceled.’” Dorman here proves our point. We believe that Americans of any political stripe have a constitutional right to free speech, free association, and, crucially, anonymous speech and association. Why? Because people might relish the opportunity to harass or punish fellow Americans for holding the “wrong” views — whether those Americans support or oppose abortion rights, support or oppose Donald Trump (or any politician), or support or oppose any other political idea. The Courts Bloomberg Law: Musk’s X Joins Texas GOP Activist’s Fight Over Transgender Photo By Ryan Autullo .....X Corp. is supporting a legal fight of a GOP activist facing potential criminal charges for posting a photo of a transgender woman in the women’s restroom at the Texas Capitol. Elon Musk’s social media company said it’s assisting Michelle Evans, a local Republican party chair in Texas, in asking all judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the Dec. 9 decision of two judges that allowed a criminal investigation to continue. “We look forward to the full Fifth Circuit correcting this wrong and preserving free speech, which is the foundation of American democracy,” X’s Global Government Affairs wrote in a post Monday morning. Schaerr Jaffe LLP, which Musk has tapped as counsel to defend political speech in other First Amendment litigation, made an appearance in Evans’ case last week, court records show. Gene Schaerr and Edward Trent, both partners, and Justin Miller, an associate, will join Evans’ lawyer, Tony McDonald. Reuters: US appeals court revives free-speech challenge to school's anti-racism training By Daniel Wiessner .....A divided U.S. appeals court on Tuesday said two employees of a Missouri school district were compelled to self-censor and make statements they disagreed with in order to complete anti-racism training, which impacted them enough to allow a lawsuit alleging their free-speech rights had been violated to proceed. In a 6-5 ruling, the full St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived the case, finding that the chilling effect that the 2020 training had on the employees was an injury that gave them standing to sue the Springfield R-12 School District for violations of their rights under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Free Expression The Free Press: Matt Taibbi: To Protect Free Speech, I’m Suing the Man Who Defamed Me By Matt Taibbi .....The idea that it’s somehow anti-speech to use courts to address a falsehood is dead wrong. It’s true that the 1964 case New York Times Company v. Sullivan set an extremely high bar for proving libel, requiring plaintiffs to show that the defamatory statement was motivated by “actual malice” in the form of “reckless disregard” for the truth. Yet when a false claim meets that threshold, as I believe Higgins’s does, it’s vital to call it out and prevent rigorous speech and opinion from being overshadowed by malicious lies. I made the same argument more than six years ago when the right-wing radio host Alex Jones was banned from Facebook and other platforms. Jones made false claims about the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but the successful defamation suits against him were a far better means of accountability than outright censorship was. In a free country, making a case to a judge is the right way to confront malicious speech, and plaintiffs have to embrace the high burden of proof as part of the trade-off for a society without censorship. New York Times: 10 Are Convicted of Cyberbullying France’s First Lady By Ségolène Le Stradic .....Ten people who falsely claimed that Brigitte Macron, France’s first lady, was born male were found guilty on Monday of online harassment. The eight men and two women — three of whom were tried in absentia — were given a range of sentences. One received a six-month jail sentence. Other punishments stretched from mandatory online harassment awareness training to an eight-month suspended jail sentence. The court also fined each 600 euros and ordered them to contribute to a total of 10,000 euros — about $12,000 — in compensation to Ms. Macron. Five of those convicted were also barred from using the social media platform involved in the case, X, for six months. Online Speech Platforms Fox News: Marco Rubio voices concern that Americans may someday be arrested for social media posts when visiting Europe By Alexander Hall .....Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned during a press briefing that he is concerned about American tourists being arrested for old social media posts… Rubio was asked during a Dec. 19 press briefing, "The State Department mentioned earlier this year some free speech concerns, particularly in Europe. What are some goals you have in regards to that in 2026?" "Well, I mean, broadly, we’re concerned about any place first and foremost where American free speech could be implicated, all right," he said. Newsweek: Israeli Billionaire’s Call to Limit Free Speech Sparks Conservative Fury By Suzanne Blake .....Israeli cybersecurity billionaire Shlomo Kramer's push to limit free speech has sparked outrage among conservatives online. During an interview New Year's Day on CNBC, Kramer said "it's time to limit the First Amendment. We need to control all the social platforms … and take control of what they are saying." … “I know it’s difficult to hear, but it’s time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it,” Kramer said during the CNBC interview. He was discussing content moderation and misinformation on tech platforms but alarmed many viewers with the framing of limiting the First Amendment, a core safeguard against government censorship. The conservative backlash arrived swiftly, with former Republican U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida writing on X: “No. We aren’t going to do this.” Washington Times: Meta’s new AI privacy policy allows targeted ads, possibly political ads, based on chats with bots By Mary McCue Bell .....Some Instagram users may start seeing that political advertisements mirror what they say and search on the social media platform. The change is part of Instagram’s newest privacy policy that allows the company to use conversations with Meta’s artificial intelligence to personalize experiences and ads. Interactions on social media platforms have long dictated each user’s personalized algorithms. The new Instagram policy update adds AI interactions to the mix. Instagram, owned by technology giant Meta, rolled out its new AI initiatives on Dec. 16. If users interact with Meta AI, which includes Instagram’s search bar, the social media platform will use that interaction to tailor ads and content relevant to the user. Meta’s new policy drew opposition from an array of advocacy groups. A coalition of 36 privacy, consumer protection, children’s rights and civil rights advocates and researchers urged the Federal Trade Commission to stop Meta’s plan. “The danger of regulatory inaction at this critical moment, when generative AI is driving an unprecedented expansion of commercial surveillance, could be catastrophic and irreversible,” the coalition said in a letter to the FCC. The States Politico: Mamdani defends eliminating executive orders on antisemitism, boycotting Israel By Joe Anuta .....New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, after nixing a pair of executive orders that dealt with antisemitism and boycotting Israel, defended his actions amid fallout that has included sharp criticism from the Israeli government and concerns from local Jewish groups. As one of his first acts as mayor, Mamdani declined to renew two executive orders signed by former Mayor Eric Adams: One that adopted a broad definition of antisemitism and another that prohibited city employees from engaging in the boycott, divest and sanctions movement against Israel. The defunct orders were part of a suite of mayoral decrees signed by Adams that Mamdani revoked. During an unrelated press briefing Friday, Mamdani pledged to protect Jewish New Yorkers, but did not go into much detail about why he tossed the orders. 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