Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 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]. Ed. note: The Media Update will return Tuesday, February 17. New from the Institute for Free Speech Institute for Free Speech Leads Broad Coalition in Urging First Circuit to Reject Group-Defamation Claim .....Can anyone sue for defamation over a general statement criticizing his entire industry? The Institute for Free Speech argues the answer must be no, as the alternative would expose speakers to sweeping liability and chill a wide range of speech on matters of public concern. The Institute for Free Speech organized a broad coalition of organizations—including the Authors Guild, the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, and Public Citizen—in filing an amicus brief in Bean Maine Lobster, Inc. v. Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation. The brief, written by attorneys at Ballard Spahr LLP, urges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to hold that statements about the lobster industry are protected by the First Amendment. Institute for Free Speech Asks Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split on Employer Threats That Chill Free Speech .....If your government employer threatens to cut your pay or harm your career if you don’t stop expressing your opinion on matters of public concern, is that a potential violation of your First Amendment rights? In the overwhelming majority of federal courts across the country, the answer is a resounding “yes.” Unfortunately, if you work in Texas, Louisiana, or Mississippi, you’re out of luck. In these states, your public-sector employer can chill your speech through threats and intimidation—as long as the employer never follows through by actually firing you or issuing a formal reprimand. That’s why the Institute for Free Speech filed a petition in Lowery v. Mills, et al., urging the Supreme Court to resolve this critical split of opinion among the courts affecting First Amendment protections for public employees. The Courts The Well News: Democratic Strategists Accuse Republicans of Evading Campaign Finance Laws By Tom Ramstack .....A group of veteran Democratic campaign strategists filed two lawsuits Thursday in federal court against the Federal Election Commission that accuse Republicans of a “bait-and-switch” strategy to violate campaign regulations. The Democrats say Republicans use money from an account labeled “legal and building funds” to pay for campaign ads. The lawsuits accuse a Republican party committee of exploiting a loophole in a revised campaign finance law to bypass contribution limits and disclosure rules. Federal Election Commission rules allow “legal and building funds” to pay for overhead expenses, such as office space, but not campaign advertising. If true, the allegations could lead to significant fines for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Courthouse News: Sixth Circuit tests free speech rights of kids on social media By Kevin Koeninger .....State governments trample minors’ First Amendment guarantee of free speech when they enforce laws that require parental consent online, an internet trade association told a Sixth Circuit panel on Wednesday. NetChoice, with members including Google, Meta and YouTube, argued at the federal appeals court in a pair of cases involving recent laws passed in Ohio and Tennessee. The two conservative states championed internet safety when their legislatures passed bills requiring minors to obtain parental consent before creating accounts on social media websites like Facebook and X. Tennessee House Bill 1891 also required all users of such sites to provide age verification. The Texas Tribune: Texas law barring state investment in firms boycotting fossil fuels declared unconstitutional By Ayden Runnels .....A federal district judge on Wednesday declared a 2021 law restricting state investments in companies boycotting the fossil fuel industry unconstitutional, calling it “facially overbroad” and citing First and Fourteenth Amendment concerns. Legislators passed Senate Bill 13 as a way of discouraging divestment from oil and gas companies, as financial figureheads at the time had signaled they intended to make climate change initiatives a larger factor in their investment considerations. The law requires the comptroller’s office to maintain a list of financial firms that refuse, terminate or penalize business with a fossil fuel company “without ordinary business purpose.” SB 13 is commonly referred to as an “anti-ESG” law, which stands for “environmental, social and governance.” Congress The Hill: Senators introduce bill targeting social media scam ads By Sophie Brams .....Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) unveiled legislation Wednesday that would require online platforms, including social media companies, to take “reasonable steps” to prevent fraudulent or deceptive advertisements from reaching consumers. The Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct (SCAM) Act seeks to crack down on “predatory online scam advertisements” that lawmakers say are costing Americans billions of dollars. Candidates and Campaigns Politico: This Supreme Court decision could upend millions in political spending ahead of the midterms. Here’s how the parties are preparing. By Elena Schneider and Andrew Howard .....The court’s pending decision could open the floodgates to even more campaign ads from the national parties and extend the timeline of campaign advertising much earlier into the summer. That would give the parties greater power in making their case directly to voters ahead of the 2026 midterms and potentially play to Republicans’ benefit in this year’s elections. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case, NRSC v. FEC, that could quietly but dramatically change how congressional elections are funded by giving political parties and their committees the ability to freely coordinate with candidates. The rules, if changed, would eliminate the need for “independent expenditure” operations for party committees — separate and firewalled arms of the committee that have spent a large chunk of campaign committees’ money since 2006, primarily on running TV advertising in the nation’s most competitive races. The States Missouri Independent: Missouri House backs bill to ban candidates from using automatic recurring donations By Rudi Keller .....A bill aimed at curbing the use of automatically recurring campaign donations — a fundraising tactic employed by a prominent GOP candidate — won first-round approval without opposition Wednesday in the Missouri House. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Jim Murphy, would prohibit political candidates from setting up recurring contributions without explicit authorization from donors. It also would require campaigns to shut off recurring donations once an election is over. Murphy didn’t mention the inspiration for the bill by name on Wednesday, but he’s made no secret that he filed the legislation after reading a report by The Independent on Bill Eigel’s fundraising strategy. Alabama Reflector: Alabama House approves bill banning foreign campaign contributions By Ralph Chapoco .....The Alabama House of Representatives approved legislation on Tuesday that prohibits foreign nationals from making political contributions. HB 214, sponsored by Rep. James Lomax, R-Huntsville, bans immigrants without legal status from contributing money to political campaigns, ballot measures, political parties and political campaign committees. The bill also prohibits foreign governments, political parties and most foreign businesses from making campaign contributions. Foreign nationals are already banned from making contributions to federal campaigns. Lomax said his bill “would mirror that law and close a loophole in regard to our ballot referendums and constitutional amendments.” C'oeur D'Alene Press: Opinion: The out-of-state money myth By Becky Funk, The Idaho Way .....Citizens Alliance of Idaho (CAI), based out of Hayden, has made a cottage industry out of warning Idahoans about “out-of-state influence.” Their fundraising letters and public messaging cast themselves as defenders of Idaho against national money, national agendas and outside control. It’s a powerful, but deeply misleading narrative. Public campaign finance records tell a different story. CAI’s political operation is overwhelmingly funded by money from outside Idaho. According to Idaho Sunshine disclosures, the Citizens Alliance of Idaho PAC raised roughly $445,000 in previous reporting periods. Of that total, approximately $435,000 came from out-of-state sources, while just over $10,000 came from Idaho donors. That means more than 97% of its funding originated outside the state and define the organization. The largest contributor listed is a Virginia-based political action committee, contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars. Additional funds come from other out-of-state entities. Idahoans, who CAI claims to defend, represent only a fraction of the financial support. None of this is illegal. Idaho law allows out-of-state donations to political committees. That is not the issue. The issue is hypocrisy. ABC 7: Loudoun, Virginia school leaders' 'terrorist' training simulated parents attacking board .....7News has learned that the board, under the leadership of new School Board Chair April Chandler, held a closed-door meeting for school board members and staff only. The subject of the meeting? Responding to “terrorist activity” at school board meetings. According to multiple sources who were in the room but requested we not identify them, the terrorism training involved dozens of actors, brought in by the school board, to act as Loudoun County parents. Those pretend “parents” sat in the gallery in the school board meeting room as actual families normally would. In this training, one of the parents has a gun. The actors were screaming and yelling and running around the room, witnesses said. School board members and staff were instructed to “run, hide, and fight,” much the same as training provided to students in the event of an active shooter scenario. Again, according to 7News sources, Chandler referred to parents as “disrupters” and “agitators” as she recalled school board meetings last year which many parents attended to speak up in support of three boys who were being investigated by the district in a case centered around policy allowing students to use the bathroom and locker room that matches their chosen gender identity, rather than their biological sex. Tallahassee Democrat: Will Florida's 'veggie libel' bill chill free speech? What to know By Stephany Matat .....Experts say that a proposed change to Florida law could chill free speech, specifically criticism of the state's Big Sugar interests and their controversial sugar cane burning practices. Sen. Keith Truenow, R-Tavares, is backing legislation (SB 290) related to farm equipment, with one provision prohibiting counties from enacting laws that restrict gas-powered farm equipment. But critics say the law also would broaden how Florida handles what experts call "veggie libel" accusations, specifically whether agricultural producers can sue people or groups for making false statements about their products, called "food disparagement." Particularly, Florida's proposal would make it the broadest law in the country in terms of food disparagement regulation, said Justin Marceau, a law professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and the Brooks Institute research scholar of animal law and policy. 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