This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].  

The Hill: Tech groups ask Supreme Court to hear case on Florida social media law

.....The Computer and Communications Association (CCIA) and NetChoice petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday to review a case about Florida’s law, which would limit companies from being able to remove content and users that violate their policies. 

The groups argue the law “openly abridges the targeted companies’ First Amendment right to exercise editorial judgment over what content to disseminate on their websites via requirements that are speaker-based, content-based, and viewpoint-discriminatory,” according to the petition.

Jurist: ACLU asks US Supreme Court to overturn Arkansas law requiring pledge not to boycott Israel

.....The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Arkansas Thursday filed a petition with the US Supreme Court challenging an Arkansas law requiring state contractors to sign a pledges stating they will not boycott Israel.

Federalist: RNC Lawsuit: Google ‘Intentionally’ Sending Republican Emails To Spam Is ‘Egregious Discrimination’

.....The Republican National Committee sued Google on Friday in a California federal court, alleging the tech giant intentionally diverted millions of RNC emails to the spam folders of supporters and potential donors to throttle its political speech. The RNC’s lawsuit proves significant both factually and legally.

Jonathan Turley: Fauci and White House Officials Ordered to Testify in Social Media Censorship Case

.....There is an interesting development out of a case in Louisiana where a federal judge has ruled that Dr. Anthony Fauci and White House officials must testify in a case alleging a backchannel for censorship on social media. The complaint in Schmitt v. Biden, No. 3:22-cv-1213 in the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana alleges that Facebook and Twitter coordinated their censorship programs with government officials. I have previously written about what some of us view as a “censorship by surrogate” system used on social media. This discovery could help understand some of those back channel contacts.

The Atlantic: Why Wasn’t I Canceled?

.....Why do we assume that cancel culture is a pervasive reality, and what’s the impact of that assumption? When the Times wrote in its editorial that Americans “know [cancel culture] exists and feel its burden,” the paper was referring to a poll it commissioned in which 84 percent of respondents said they believed “retaliation” and “harsh criticism” against opinions now constitute a “serious” problem. But substantial numbers of Americans also believe the 2020 election was fraudulent without that being the truth. I began to think that the way pro-free-speech advocates now talk about speech suppression constitutes a driver of the perception of it. And that, paradoxically, concern about cancel culture has itself become a threat to free speech.

Washington Post: Hyperpartisan ‘local news’ sites are dangerous to democracy

.....The Michigan Independent isn’t exactly independent. It isn’t based in Michigan, either. The outlet is one of many in a bevy of publications that look like local news sites, complete with old-timey fonts and christened with names including “standard,” “herald” and “courant” but filled mostly with political advocacy funded by super PACs and other partisan interests. This is a different threat from the foreign interference campaigns that have become the bogeyman of elections, but in some ways, it raises a similar concern. Our democracy is engaging in self-sabotage.

Politico: Abrams’ campaign chair collected millions in legal fees from voting rights organization

.....The voting rights organization founded by Stacey Abrams spent more than $25 million over two years on legal fees, mostly on a single case, with the largest amount going to the self-described boutique law firm of the candidate’s campaign chairwoman.

Daily Wire: Democrats Spent More Backing Trump-esque Candidates In Primaries Than Trump Has

.....Democrats spent more on pro-Donald Trump candidates in Republican primaries than Trump himself directly ponied up to help his favored candidates get over the finish line, according to a Daily Wire analysis.

AZCentral: Proposition 211 protects liberals while it sets up conservatives for harassment

By Cathi Herrod and Scot Mussi

.....Why not disclose political donors? It’s an easy question for those exempt from such exposure.

AP News: Groups sue to put super PAC question on 2024 state ballot

.....Groups pushing for a 2024 ballot question aimed at reining in the spending power of super PACs filed two lawsuits in Massachusetts on Monday that target a decision by the state attorney general’s office to block the question on the grounds that it would infringe on First Amendment rights.

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.