August 22, 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

Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): Can University-Run Social Media Accounts Block You?

By Keith E. Whittington

.....Bruce Gilley is a political science professor at Portland State University. In the past few years he has become a fairly controversial figure, initially as a result of publishing a scholarly article making the case for colonialism.

He has now filed suit against the communications manager of the University of Oregon Division of Equity and Inclusion for blocking him on Twitter. The Division of Equity and Inclusion is a center on the University of Oregon campus, and it has an official Twitter account.

In his complaint, brought by the Institute for Free Speech, Gilley alleges:

Oregon's flagship state university has a Division of Equity and Inclusion ("Division"), whose communication manager, Tova Stabin, posts content on the topics of diversity, equity, and inclusion on the social media platform Twitter, using the Division's official account. She recently posted a "Racism Interrupter" prompt, which was open to comments by other Twitter users. But when Bruce Gilley posted "all men are created equal," Tova Stabin blocked him from the Equity Division's Twitter account, because he promotes a colorblind viewpoint with which she, and her employer, disagree. Stabin's blocking constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, and it violates the First Amendment...

Should be interesting.

ICYMI

The Mirage of Corruption: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s “Appearance of Corruption” Standard

By Alec Greven

.....The Supreme Court’s landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision laid the foundation for modern campaign finance law in the United States. The decision rests on the fundamental tension between the First Amendment and campaign finance regulations; a limit on the ability to raise and spend money on political campaigns is a limit on the First Amendment because money is an indispensable tool to engage in campaign speech. When these regulations harm First Amendment rights, Buckley reasons, they can only be upheld if they serve a compelling government interest. This is a weighty constitutional burden.

What government interest warranted this First Amendment intrusion? Buckley established that the only legal justification for campaign finance regulations that could meet a compelling governmental interest were restrictions that reduce corruption or its appearance. This report examines the latter justification, specifically what we have learned about the relationship between campaign finance laws and their ability to limit the “appearance of corruption” in the 45 years since the Court’s decision.

PDF

The Courts

Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): Federal Court Rules Against Florida Law Banning "Woke" Workplace Training

By Ilya Somin

.....Last week, a US federal district court ruled that a key element of Florida's recently enacted "Stop Woke Act" is unconstitutional, because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The relevant part of the act bars employers from requiring workers to attend trainings or engage in any other "activity" that involves promotion of any of a long list of prohibited ideas.

As Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida notes in his opinion, this is part of a pattern in which Florida has enacted a series of laws that violate the free speech rights of private organizations on the pretext that doing so somehow prevents them from undermining freedom of speech themselves:

Free Expression

NBC News: A new political divide: Nearly half of college students wouldn’t room with someone who votes differently

By Mark Murray

.....Almost half of second-year college students say they wouldn’t choose to be roommates with someone who supported a different presidential candidate than they did in 2020.

A majority say they wouldn't go on a date with someone who voted differently, and nearly two-thirds of them say they couldn’t see themselves marrying someone who backed a different presidential candidate two years ago.

Those are the findings of a new online NBC News/Generation Lab poll of the class of 2025 as they begin their second year of college.

The States

Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): Schoolteachers' First Amendment Rights to Publicly Criticize Transgender Pronoun Policies,

By Eugene Volokh

.....From the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Loudoun County School Bd. v. Cross last August, but for some reason just posted on Westlaw in the last day or two; it mostly defers to the trial court's judgment, but also has some more to say about employee speech rights more broadly:

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