This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
In the News
By Taylor Giorno
.....The Federal Election Commission passed a new digital ad transparency rule on Thursday requiring anyone who places political advertising on the internet to disclose within the ad who paid for it. But a recent revision pulled back earlier language requiring those who promote digital political ads to disclose if they are being paid to do so…
The commission was set to consider the initial draft of the new rule in its Nov. 17 open meeting, which was canceled in the eleventh hour.
Internal pushback from FEC commissioner Sean Cooksey on the “burdensome and confusing” requirements and concerns from free speech advocates prompted a second draft. The revised draft limited the scope of digital ad disclosure requirements from people who “placed or promoted” paid political ads on the internet to only those who placed them.
|
|
By Mark Wingfield
.... Amid the nationwide interest generated by the recent lawsuit brought by David and Mary Sills against the Southern Baptist Convention and 11 other defendants, some observers have raised a particular question: Why was this suit filed in Alabama, when none of the major parties reside there and none of the alleged misdeeds happened there?
Brent Hobbs, lead pastor at New Song Fellowship in Virginia Beach, Va., has an idea he tweeted: “Worth noting they filed in Alabama, which has no anti-SLAPP laws in place. That’s no coincidence IMO. States like that are considered safe havens for frivolous defamation suits.” …
The Institute for Free Speech has given Alabama an “F” on its scorecard of states protecting free speech. Alabama is one of 19 states receiving a failing grade from the watchdog group.
|
|
New from the Institute for Free Speech
By Alec Greven
.....It has not been a good month at PayPal. “On November 3, the online payment platform was set to institute a policy change that would have fined users for “misinformation” at $2,500 per violation. Essentially, PayPal gave itself the ability to decide whether its users speech was true or false, and them fine them for speaking against their established orthodoxy. IFS previously drew attention to how dangerous these standards were for free expression. After predictable backlash and rapidly falling share prices, PayPal rescinded the policy and said it was an error.
But the uproar also brought attention to another controversial fine (in place for over a year) which allowed PayPal to fine users $2,500 for the “promotion of hate, violence, racial or other forms of intolerance that is discriminatory” and “items that are considered obscene” and take the money directly from user accounts. After yet more backlash, PayPal issued a statement saying that PayPal will not fine users for violations of their Acceptable Use Policy.
On October 29, the platform quietly removed their speech tax entirely.
|
|
The Courts
By Eugene Volokh
.....New York politicians are slapping a badge on my chest. A law going into effect Saturday requires social-media networks, including any site that allows comments, to publish a plan for responding to alleged hate speech by users.
The law blog I run fits the bill, so the law will mandate that I post publicly my policy for responding to comments that “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group” based on “race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” It also requires that I give readers a way to complain about my blog’s content and obligates me to respond directly.
I don’t want to moderate such content and I don’t endorse the state’s definition of hate speech. I do sometimes delete comments, but I do it based on my own editorial judgment, not state command. Still, I’m being conscripted. By obligating me to do the state’s bidding with regard to viewpoints that New York condemns, the law violates the First Amendment.
[ Ed. note: Read more about the lawsuit from FIRE's press release.]
|
|
FEC
By Cristiano Lima
.....Democratic FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, who backed the initial rule but abstained from backing the tweaked version, told me: “There are always people who try to exploit any gap in the regulations. I think we are better off with the word promoted in the regulation.”
GOP Commissioner Sean Cooksey, who opposed the expanded version, said it could have “unduly” burdened political speech by regulating cases where groups pay to expand the viewership of their posts or pay staff or individuals to engage in “grass-roots organizing.”
“I think, arguably, it may interfere with a lot of prominent social media accounts and social media influencers who want to work with campaigns,” Cooksey said.
|
|
PACs
By Madison Hall
.....The political action committees of three major trade associations each reported falling victim to stolen checks and fraudulent bank activity this election cycle, according to an Insider analysis of Federal Election Commission records.
An Insider review of FEC filings shows that the National Association of Manufacturers' PAC reported eight instances of stolen and fraudulent checks and bank transfers, amounting to more than $10,000 in losses.
|
|
Online Speech Platforms
By Elizabeth Nolan Brown
.....Ye, formerly known as Kanye West, was suspended from Twitter yesterday after posting an image of a swastika inside the Star of David. Ye also defended Nazis and said he likes Hitler during a Thursday live chat with Infowars' Alex Jones.
Twitter CEO Elon Musk said the rapper was suspended because "he again violated our rule against incitement to violence."
That's…a stretch.
It's also another revealing moment in the debate about free speech on Twitter.
I think Ken "Popehat" White says it best: Musk is certainly free to kick off Ye—"just like [he] can boot ANYONE for any reason or none. He owns the platform. That's HIS free speech and free association." Any suggestion that he shouldn't be allowed to give Ye the boot or that this somehow infringes on the rapper's rights is silly. But the move makes even more laughable the idea that Musk is some sort of stalwart defender of free speech.
|
|
The States
By Tim Novak and Frank Main
.....More than a decade ago, then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel issued an executive order that prohibited him and future mayors from taking any campaign money from lobbyists.
This year, Mayor Lori Lightfoot has accepted more than $53,000 in 39 individual campaign contributions from 14 companies owned by Carmen A. Rossi, a registered city lobbyist.
Rossi — who is also a city contractor and restaurateur and nightclub owner and who holds the liquor license for the Lollapalooza music festival — didn’t make any of the contributions to Lightfoot in his own name.
It isn’t clear whether Lightfoot’s taking the contributions from his companies would violate the ban Emanuel imposed on mayors taking political money from lobbyists.
Emanuel, now President Joe Biden’s U.S. ambassador to Japan, was asked by a Chicago Sun-Times reporter whether taking campaign money from businesses owned by a lobbyist would violate the “spirit” of his 2011 ethics order — without being told the question was regarding Rossi, whom Emanuel appointed to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in 2015.
Responding by email, the former mayor said: “I am in Japan. I don’t have records but definitely spirit. As to a literal interpretation. There is an ethics board for interpretation.”
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|