The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech September 26, 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 [email protected]. In the News George-Anne Media Group: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Free Speech in Forsyth County By Christina Charles .....Unassuming Forsyth is under legal fire for banning members of parent advocacy group Mama Bears from County school board meetings until she promises in writing to abide by the rules. Reason for the ban? Reading an excerpt from a book in their library... After receiving two letters restraining her from attending the meeting, Hair took matters to federal court represented by the Institute for Free Speech... Mama bears of Forsyth county make it clear this is no longer about the books; it’s about freedom of speech and the right to be heard by the government. Congress Las Vegas Review-Journal: Democrats push to limit speech By Editorial Board .....On Thursday, the Senate failed to move the DISCLOSE Act, legislation that would require independent groups engaged in political activity to make public the names of large donors. The bill was all gussied up as a “good government” initiative, but was actually a stealth attempt to promote the harassment and intimidation of those who who don’t toe the progressive line. “In general, the requirement could make some donors less likely to give … or make the advocacy groups less likely to engage in certain sorts of public communication,” Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown wrote this week. “In this way, it could have a major chilling effect on free speech.” In addition, “nearly any group can be said to discuss ‘public issues,’ ” Allen Dickerson, a Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, wrote last year for The Wall Street Journal. “Any distinction between speech about ‘public’ and ‘nonpublic’ matters would be hopelessly vague and dangerously susceptible to biased enforcement.” People United for Privacy: Victory for Citizen Privacy: Speech-Chilling DISCLOSE Act Fails Senate Procedural Vote .....Despite supporters’ claims, the DISCLOSE Act does not concern funding for campaigns and political groups, such as super PACs. These entities are already required by law to publicly report the names, addresses, occupations, and employers of donors who contribute over $200 in an election cycle. Comments by Members of Congress and the media that suggest this overreaching bill will strengthen campaign finance donor disclosures are intentionally misleading the public about its purpose. The DISCLOSE Act targets nonprofit organizations that speak about legislative issues, government affairs, the courts, and other topics of public importance. Many of these nonprofits, such as the ACLU and the NAACP, have played a critical role in educating and mobilizing Americans around social causes for generations. WSJ Podcasts: Opinion: Potomac Watch .....Look, [the DISCLOSE Act] is in so many ways, a very sneaky thing, because the way we have the law right now, if you are a group and you want to run an ad within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, then you have to disclose who's donating to that. But this kind of Disclose Act would basically make that into a 365 day a year provision, because any group that mentions a candidate even call Chuck Schumer and tell him you think he's great, now sort of qualifies for that kind of disclosure. A second point that I think is important to mention here, in terms of the way they want to target their political opponents, is that a bill like this, which says that anyone who contributes more than $10,000 in a two year cycle to a group would be disclosed, is very easily targeted at business groups. A lot of these business groups, you know...have members who just as a matter of dues, put that much money in. If those groups mention a candidate, whether or not those dues were in any way intended to be for that specifically, you have a whole huge list of donors that get exposed. There's a lot of convenience there for the Democrats, for sure. Inside Climate News: New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Would Protect Activists and Whistleblowers From Abusive Lawsuits By Alleen Brown .....The SLAPP Protection Act of 2022, introduced last Thursday by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), would create a pathway for a judge to quickly dismiss a lawsuit if they found that the allegations amounted to First Amendment protected speech. It would also empower judges to force those behind the SLAPP suits to reimburse the money their targets spent on lawyers. “This legislation is super powerful,” said Greenpeace General Counsel Deepa Padmanabha, who is confronting two multi-million dollar lawsuits filed by corporations against the environmental organization. “SLAPPs are a desperate attempt to silence resistance, to silence exposure, to silence public watchdogs from exposing the fossil fuel industry for what it is.” The Courts Wall Street Journal: Big Tech Has No Constitutional Right to Censor By Allysia Finley .....Both Texas and Florida laws are innovative solutions to tech censorship, and they may not get it entirely right. But state laboratories of democracy are meant for experimentation. New York Times: Jury Rules Against Project Veritas in Lawsuit By Adam Goldman .....A jury in a federal civil case on Thursday found that Project Veritas, a conservative group known for its deceptive tactics, had violated wiretapping laws and fraudulently misrepresented itself as part of a lengthy sting operation against Democratic political consultants… In his closing statement, Mr. Calli said Project Veritas had engaged in “deceit, deception and dishonesty.” The group used those tactics, he said, so Project Veritas “can speak truth to power.” He said there was no evidence this was a political spying operation and that the lawsuit was an attack on journalism. “The sole purpose of the operation was journalism,” Mr. Calli said. Law & Crime: Trump-Appointed Judge Dismisses Lawsuit by Parents Who Sued over Merrick Garland School Board Memo That Sparked Conservative Outrage By Adam Klasfeld .....A little less than a year ago, Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a single-page memo that denounced threats of violence and intimidation against school teachers, administrators and staff. The memo quickly sparked outrage from conservative media and lawmakers on Capitol Hill — and even a federal lawsuit from parents claiming it was a blueprint to “silence” them. On Friday, a federal judge appointed by Donald Trump jettisoned the lawsuit, finding that the parents and the groups representing them misread the less than 300-word memo. “The alleged AG Policy is not regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature because it does not impose any regulations, requirements, or enforcement actions on individuals,” U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich noted in a 10-page ruling. “None of the documents that the plaintiffs allege establish the policy create an imminent threat of future legal actions against anyone, much less the plaintiffs.” Free Expression Washington Times: Postal Service surveilled protesters with pro-gun, anti-Biden agendas By Ryan Lovelace .....The U.S. Postal Service monitored protesters across the country, snooping on Americans focused on issues involving guns and President Biden’s election, according to records obtained by The Washington Times. Reason: Germany's Criminalization of Online Offensiveness Shows the Perils of Weakening the First Amendment By Jacob Sullum .....Americans who are alarmed by online "hate speech" and "misinformation" tend to resent the limits that the First Amendment imposes on government intervention against objectionable content. But German authorities do not suffer from such constraints, and the consequences should give pause to critics who are sympathetic to the idea that freedom of speech sweeps too broadly in the United States. As a New York Times story published today shows, the ongoing German crackdown on "hate speech, insults and misinformation" has predictably subjected political dissenters to police investigation and criminal penalties for expressing their views in ways that offend the powers that be. The States Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): First Amendment Limits on State Laws Targeting Election Misinformation, Part IV By David Ardia .....Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia have statutes that regulate the content of election-related speech. The statutes take one of two general forms: (1) statutes that directly target the content of election-related speech; and (2) generally applicable statutes that indirectly implicate election-related speech by prohibiting intimidation or fraud associated with an election. We analyze each of these statutory forms in the following sections, paying particular attention to how broadly or narrowly the statutes define the speech they target and what level of fault or intent they require for liability. 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]