This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
Ed. note: The Daily Media Update will return Monday, November 14.
|
|
We're Hiring!
.....The Institute for Free Speech is seeking a skilled communicator with experience in media relations and a proven record of developing relationships with journalists and influencers. This role will support all aspects of the Institute for Free Speech’s work. The Communications Director will understand both traditional media outreach efforts and social media to share the Institute’s pro-speech message.
This position demands a candidate who has an in-depth understanding of what drives news stories and can use the news cycle to educate the public on the threats to and the importance of free speech. In short, you will help spread the Institute’s message and fight for the First Amendment’s speech freedoms and a culture of free speech in the court of public opinion.
|
|
ICYMI
By Eric Wang
.....A Washington state court in Seattle recently imposed a whopping $24.6 million penalty against Meta for political ads sold on Facebook in violation of the state’s campaign finance laws. Hailing the decision, Washington’s attorney general condemned the company for its “arrogance” and demanded that it “apologize for its conduct.” Pot, meet kettle.
While the social media giant's political ad policies have (sometimes justifiably) come under bipartisan attack, Washington’s prosecution of Meta and the resulting judgment is a miscarriage of justice. The unreasonable fine is the largest by far ever imposed for a campaign finance law violation, and the underlying Washington law is itself an aberration.
|
|
The Courts
By Eugene Volokh
.....In Nielsen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, handed down yesterday by Judge Paul Borman (E.D. Mich.) (the decision itself had been announced Friday), the Skyline High School student Republican park (represented by student S.N.) sought to have an announcement read over the school's public address system, "which also announces proposals from other student groups" (the Complaint had cited many such past announcements, including on controversial political issues):
|
|
By Bob Egelko
.....A California law that would punish doctors who give patients false information about COVID-19 has already been challenged by two anti-vaccine physicians. Now it’s being contested by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the legislation suppresses free speech and isn’t needed to protect patients from medical misinformation or mistreatment.
“[R]ather than employ the existing tools at its disposal, the State has taken a blunt instrument to the entire profession,” ACLU attorneys said in a filing Monday in federal court in Los Angeles, where the doctors’ lawsuit is awaiting judicial review.
|
|
By María Luisa Paúl
.....[A]fter they arrested him and took him into custody, Bailey learned he was facing a felony terrorism charge — over a joke he made on Facebook comparing the coronavirus pandemic to the zombie apocalypse featured in the 2013 film “World War Z” starring Brad Pitt…
Though the district attorney decided not to prosecute, Bailey filed a civil rights lawsuit alleging that deputies had violated his First and Fourth amendment rights.
While the lawsuit was dismissed by the court, Bailey is now appealing the decision in an attempt to hold the sheriff’s office accountable for what he contends was a wrongful arrest and a violation of his freedom of speech.
|
|
Congress
By Betsy McCaughey
.....A report that Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee released Friday shows the deceptions the FBI is using to justify Biden’s speech police. The chilling brief documents, with whistleblower testimony, the FBI’s role in silencing the left’s opponents.
Republicans — who likely eked out a House majority Tuesday night — are vowing to unmask Biden’s censorship scheme and the FBI’s lies.
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Rebecca Kern
....President Joe Biden said on Wednesday he would support a U.S. government review of the foreign investors backing Elon Musk’s $44 billion Twitter purchase.
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By the Editorial Board
.....Russian interference is so 2016. While this year’s midterms revealed that disinformation threats from foreign adversaries remain real as ever, they have also shown great danger right here at home.
|
|
By Taylor Giorno
.....More than 69% of the $2.1 billion outside dollars spent this cycle went toward attacking federal candidates, a new OpenSecrets analysis found. Negative outside spending has helped add fuel to hotly contested races – and an increasingly violent political environment.
The volume of negative outside spending has spiked since the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC opened the door to unlimited spending by corporations, unions and individuals.
In 2002, just 23.6% of the $53.1 million outside groups spent that election cycle were negative.
While that ratio jumped to 68.3% negative outside spending during the 2006 midterm election, outside groups only spent a total of $302.7 million that entire election cycle. But with more than $2.1 billion dollars pouring from outside groups into 2022 midterms, the sheer volume of outside money flowing into politics since Citizens United has supercharged negative spending.
|
|
By Andy Sullivan
.....A risky Democratic strategy to spend millions of dollars on elevating some far-right Republican candidates appeared to pay off on Wednesday, as Democratic nominees defeated them in several races across the country.
|
|
The States
By Isaac Stanley-Becker
.....Voters in Arizona, sharply divided over which candidates should represent them, found broad agreement Tuesday on a different matter — those candidates should not take office propelled by major sums of undisclosed money...
The measure, Proposition 211, requires any group making independent expenditures of at least $50,000 in statewide races or $25,000 in other races to report donors contributing more than $5,000...
Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, argued that the measure’s effect would be “chilling the political speech of donors to more conservative organizations and setting them up for harassment and intimidation from those who disagree.”
The editorial board of the Wall Street Journal echoed that warning, singling out the state measure for criticism last week and painting it as a Democratic initiative. “Democrats have failed to pass restrictions on political speech in Congress, so they’re taking the fight to state ballots,” the newspaper’s editorial board wrote. “The latest salvo is a little-noticed measure in Arizona that would require disclosure of the ‘original source of monies used for campaign media spending.’ ”
|
|
By Eugene Volokh
.....From Rud v. Fischbach, decided Wednesday by Administrative Law Judge Barbara Case of the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings:
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
