The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech August 10, 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 Times: Free speech group gives 43 states failing ratings By Ryan Lovelace .....The Institute for Free Speech has given 43 states failing scores in its new Free Speech Index, underscoring the opposition facing people wishing to speak openly about politics and government nationwide. Institute for Free Speech President David Keating said citizens would need to hire an attorney to navigate laws in most states to advocate for better government. “If these were classroom grades, more than 40 states would fail,” Mr. Keating said in a statement. “To put it simply, legislatures across the nation have regulated too much speech by too many groups.” Just three states — Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa — scored more than 70% of the possible 1,000 points in the first-ever Free Speech Index, which rated the states on how well they support the speech and association rights of groups and individuals. Ed. note: Read the report here or here (PDF). Just the News: Mom sues school district to open antiracism meetings, as stifled dissenters gain wins over educrats By Greg Piper .....Restricting public participation in public meetings can be costly. A Philadelphia-area school district recently paid $300,000 in attorney's fees — and symbolic payments of $17.91 to individual plaintiffs — to settle a lawsuit for prohibiting "offensive," "intolerant," "verbally abusive" or "irrelevant" language at board meetings and requiring speakers to announce their addresses. A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction against the Pennsbury School District last fall for editing out racist "dog whistles" from a meeting video, shutting down public commenters for criticizing its equity program, and potentially chilling speakers by bringing in law enforcement. School officials were facing potential personal liability for unconstitutional actions when the district settled with the Institute for Free Speech, which represented community members. The public interest law firm said the district rewrote its public comment policy, abolished its "civility policy" and even fired the law firm that advised the board. Raleigh News & Observer: Criminal investigation into AG Josh Stein’s campaign can go on, federal judge rules By Will Doran .....A criminal investigation into a 2020 ad by North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein’s campaign team can move forward, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The judge’s decision reverses her own ruling from last month, when she had temporarily halted the investigation. Catherine Eagles, a federal judge for the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, initially ruled that the law the state is basing its investigation on appeared to be unconstitutional. But Eagles’ order Tuesday says that, after hearing further arguments from both sides in the case, she now believes the law is reasonable and she will no longer block the investigation. At question is an obscure state law, written in the 1930s but never once used — until now. It makes it a crime to knowingly spread false information about a politician... “I think that law is clearly unconstitutional,” David Keating, a longtime conservative activist who is now the president of the Institute for Free Speech, wrote in an email. The Courts Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Court Upholds N.C. Statute That Criminalizes Knowingly/Recklessly Libelous Statements About Candidates By Eugene Volokh .....Grimmett v. Costa, decided today by Judge Catherine Eagles (M.D.N.C.), refused to issue a preliminary injunction against a N.C. statute that makes it a misdemeanor “[f]or any person to publish or cause to be circulated derogatory reports with reference to any candidate in any primary or election, knowing such report to be false or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity, when such report is calculated or intended to affect the chances of such candidate for nomination or election.” From the opinion, which I think is likely correct as to such narrow statutes focused on libels of candidates (because [1] narrowly crafted criminal libel statutes are generally constitutional under Supreme Court precedents, even though [2] broader laws banning lies in election campaigns, including ones that aren't libelous of particular individuals, are likely unconstitutional): Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Removal of Books With "Lascivious Content" from School Libraries Likely Constitutionally Permissible By Eugene Volokh .....From C.K.-W. v. Wentzville R-IV School Dist., decided Friday by Judge Matthew Schelp (E.D. Mo.); assuming the facts are as described, the decision seems legally correct to me as to K-12 public school libraries (though the analysis would be quite different as to removals of speakers from government property that the government has opened up as a limited public forum for private speech): Independent Groups Fox News: 'Squad' supporting Justice Democrats PAC raked in six figures from dark money source By Joe Schoffstall .....As far-left "Squad" members warn of the perils of dark money in politics, a prominent committee working on expanding its ranks within Congress has received a sizable cash injection from unknown donors, according to federal filings reviewed by Fox News Digital. The States Texas Signal: CNN Report On Texas Dark Money Renews Push For Reform By Fernando Ramirez .....Democratic lawmakers and the watchdog group Public Citizen gathered in Austin on Tuesday to push for limits on state-level campaign contributions and modernize the Texas Ethics Commission. It’s a renewed push to curb the influence of dark money on Texas politics following the release of a CNN special report that highlighted how a small group of billionaires were bankrolling conservative politics in the state. “These issues should not be partisan, we should all be able to come together to build a stronger healthier democracy for all Texans,” said Rep. Erin Zwiener of Driftwood. Zwiener filed two bills last sesion to cap contribution in the state, which unlike federal campaigns, have no limit. Both bills never made it out of committee. Adrian Shelley, director of Public Citizen Texas, said campaign ethic reforms are necessary to restore confidence in democracy in the Lone Star State. “Franky, we have a system right now that allows democracy to be auctioned off to the highest bidder,” Shelley said, explaining that Texas has no individual contribution limits and no legislation to address the revolving door between lawmaking and lobbying. At the federal level, Shelley said Public Citizen was calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Denver Post: In crowded city races, Denver’s new fair election fund will face first test By Joe Rubino .....Overhauling Denver’s campaign finance rules was popular with voters in 2018. More than 70% of Denverites who cast ballots that year voted for Referred Measure 2E. The sweeping change to the city’s campaign rules ratcheted down contribution limits for candidates seeking every seat from mayor to the city auditor, banned direct corporate and union campaign contributions and established a fair elections fund to provide public financing for candidates who agreed to abide by even lower contribution limits and other rules... Denver’s 2023 municipal election is inching closer and, finally, the city’s fair elections fund will come to bear on local races... The Denver Elections Division’s ultra-careful accounting aside, there is a legitimate concern that the $8 million in funding voters authorized in 2018 won’t be enough to pay out all the candidates who qualify for the public matching between now and the deadline to participate next February. San Gabriel Valley Tribune: ACLU slams Montebello for allegedly violating public comment law; here’s why By Mike Sprague .....The American Civil Liberties Union in an Aug. 5 letter has accused Montebello City Council members of violating the state’s open-meeting law by not allowing the public criticism of city employees at council meetings. ACLU of Southern California also said the city illegally requires the public to specifically address the mayor during the public comment period, said ACLU Southern California’s chief counsel Peter Eliasberg and Zoe McKinney, staff attorney at First Amendment and Democracy, in the letter to Mayor Kimberly Cobos-Cawthorne and the city’s four council members. It impermissibly restricts free speech, including speech of matters of public concern, Eliasberg and McKinney wrote. “We are prepared to go to court for relief on the two matters,” McKinney said in a Monday, Aug. 8, telephone interview. “You should be able to address your comments to anyone on the board.” 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 ‌ ‌ ‌ The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected]