June 27, 2022

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 Luke Wachob at [email protected].

In the News

Washington Examiner: Sheldon Whitehouse's DISCLOSE Act would not have prevented Jan. 6

By Eric Wang

.....Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) seems to think the DISCLOSE Act is a political cure-all. His latest sales pitch is that, if adopted, it would help “the American people … find out who funded the Jan. 6 insurrection.”

It’s a good thing for him that the Disinformation Governance Board has been shelved because the bill would do nothing of the sort. Rather, the measure would expose the personal information of donors to law-abiding organizations and subject them to threats and violence by domestic extremists.

ICYMI

An Open Letter in Support of the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act

.....The undersigned organizations represent an array of views across the political spectrum, which often results in disagreements on certain issues. Yet protection from meritless lawsuits to punish speech, known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is one principle that we all agree on. Our organizations strongly support robust anti-SLAPP laws modeled after the Uniform Law Commission’s (“ULC”) Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (“UPEPA”).

PDF

The Courts

Washington Post: Lawsuits challenge Oklahoma anti-protest law; riot charges

By Ken Miller, AP

.....Six Oklahomans have filed two federal lawsuits that challenge a state law intended to crack down on protesters and that allege their civil rights were violated when they were arrested in Oklahoma City in 2020.

The anti-protest law is unconstitutionally broad and vague, according to one of the lawsuits filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma City on behalf of Sincere Terry, Mia Hogsett, Tyreke Baker, Preston Nabors, Trevour Webb and Austin Mack by the American Civil Liberties Union.

“It sweeps far beyond the very limited and narrow true threats exception to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, thereby subjecting non-violent protesters to criminal liability for exercising their constitutionally protected rights to speech and assembly,” according to the lawsuit that names state Attorney General John O’Connor and Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater.

Online Speech Platforms

New York Times: As Midterms Loom, Elections Are No Longer Top Priority for Meta C.E.O.

By Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang

.....Safeguarding elections is no longer Mr. Zuckerberg’s top concern, said four Meta employees with knowledge of the situation…

The shift in emphasis at Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp, could have far-reaching consequences as faith in the U.S. electoral system reaches a brittle point...

Several civil right groups said they had noticed Meta’s shift in priorities.

The States

PoliticoPro: Massive overhaul of New Jersey's campaign finance law takes first legislative step

By Matt Friedman

.....A bill that would drastically overhaul New Jersey’s campaign finance law — doubling contribution limits, removing many “pay to play” donation restrictions and requiring quick disclosure of major donations — began advancing in the state Senate on Thursday, just a week after it was introduced.

The bill, NJ S2866 (22R), dubbed the "Elections Transparency Act," was approved by the Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism and Historic Preservation Committee by a vote of 5-0 after just a few minutes of discussion.

State Sen. Vince Polistina (R-Atlantic) said New Jersey’s current campaign finance restrictions encourage donors to go around the laws using other organizations, like super PACs, that are not subject to state restrictions.

“They’re going to find ways around every campaign finance reform you try to do. So I think transparency is the key,” Polistina told the committee. “I think it’s more transparent when you have it going directly to candidates as opposed to super PACs or any other entity.”

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): State Attorney General Suggests Considering Applicants' Ideological Viewpoints in Denying Carry Licenses

By Eugene Volokh

.....Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing "the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional." ...

But the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional," and that this requirement isn't limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:

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 First Amendment rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org.

Follow the Institute for Free Speech