This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
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.
|
|
In the News
By Bethany Blankley
.....Eighteen attorneys general led by Montana's Austin Knudsen filed an amicus brief with an appeals court in support of parental rights in school in a case filed by Parents Defending Education against Linn-Mar School District in Iowa.
Represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, PDE sued in August in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, arguing Linn Mar’s policy to withhold information about children from their parents is unconstitutional. PDE asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to halt the policy while the case progressed. District Judge C.J. Williams denied their request in September.
The case is now before the St. Louis-based Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. So far, the AGs and 47 organizations filed briefs in support of PDE, including First Liberty Institute, Liberty Justice Center, Institute for Free Speech & Moms for Liberty, and the Justice Foundation & Parental Rights Iowa.
|
|
By Justine Lookenott
.....Ten months after being banned from Forsyth County Board of Education meetings, one of the plaintiffs of the Mama Bears (of Forsyth County) v. Forsyth County Schools federal lawsuit spoke during the BOE meeting on Tuesday, December 13.
Alison Hair was banned from school board meetings in March after refusing to stop reading explicit material from a book she was protesting being in school libraries. This led to the Mama Bears v. Forsyth County Schools lawsuit, which recently ruled on a motion partially in favor of Mama Bears, allowing Hair back into BOE meetings.
Hair arrived at the meeting with several other parents from Mama Bears wearing matching red shirts that read “Protect our kids! Education Not Indoctrination.” At the podium, Hair told the board that they should “be ashamed” for “silencing” her and other parents.
“I'm so sorry for our community, that it took this, that it took the taxpayers’ money to allow me to be back to tell you what all I was trying to tell you before, which is what you're doing by sexualizing our children is not right. It's not right,” Hair said. “And I am a tax-paying citizen, and I reserve the right to speak at these meetings. I hope that this case restores the freedom of speech that you took away from me and that you took away from so many others. I also hope that this case encourages all parents to stand up and speak up for their rights.”
Hair then announced that she would be picking up right where she left off, literally, by continuing to read explicit material from the book she had been reading at the March meeting that resulted in her ban.
|
|
.....The Bill of Rights stands as one of the greatest accomplishments in American history. The first ten amendments to the United States Constitution enshrined in federal law protections for our fundamental rights and liberties that endure to this day. Yet as we celebrate the 231st anniversary of their ratification on Bill of Rights Day, these rights are still in need of defending.
The nonprofit Buckeye Institute in Ohio is the latest group of Americans to go to court to protect their privacy and free speech rights from government overreach. In a federal lawsuit filed earlier this month, the Institute is challenging a longstanding mandate that nonprofits turn over their donor lists to the IRS on an annual basis regardless of whether the information is needed to enforce tax laws. Citing last year’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the lawsuit notes that the government must consider potential First Amendment harms before requiring nonprofits to reveal sensitive information about their supporters.
“The Buckeye Institute has experienced firsthand the chilling effect that forced donor disclosure has on the freedom of association,” said Robert Alt, President and Chief Executive Officer of The Buckeye Institute, who represents the group in the case along with attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech.
|
|
ICYMI
By Alec Greven
.....While there were many interesting results in this year’s 2022 midterms, the claim that money can simply buy elections was notably dealt another serious blow. In several races this cycle, from the high-profile gubernatorial contests to down ballot contest, politicians were able to pull out victories, despite being largely outspent.
The reason why this happened is straightforward: Money is vital for campaigns to speak and spread their message to voters. But money cannot simply buy political success because sometimes voters don’t like the message candidates have. Ultimately voters, not campaign spending, decide who wins and who loses.
This post looks at some of the ways that spending did not lead to success in 2022:
|
|
The Courts
By Adam Klasfeld
.....Trying to stave off a First Amendment lawsuit against New York’s online hate speech law, the Empire State’s attorney general Letitia James (D) told a federal judge on Wednesday that a law professor and two social media platforms that sued her have the statute “wrong.”
“Plaintiffs’ action is based on a fundamentally incorrect reading of the statute,” her special litigation counsel Seth J. Farber wrote in a 34-page legal brief, emphasizing that the statute “does not regulate” speech. “Nowhere in the statute is a social media network required to remove so-called “hate speech” —or any other kind of speech — from any platform. And nowhere in the statute is a social media network punished or penalized based on content or viewpoint.”
First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who runs the blog the Volokh Conspiracy, disagrees — and filed a federal lawsuit with the platforms Rumble and Locals to oppose it.
|
|
By Cat Zakrzewski
.....The tech industry group NetChoice on Wednesday sued to block a landmark California law that requires tech companies to adopt new policies to protect children and their privacy online, in the latest legal salvo over the future of social media regulation.
NetChoice argues in its lawsuit that the law violates the First Amendment, arguing that tech companies have the right under the Constitution to make “editorial decisions” about what content they publish or remove. The industry group said that the law, which is set to go into effect in 2024, would force companies to “serve as roving censors of speech on the Internet” and result in “over-moderation” of content online.
|
|
Congress
By Brooke Singman
.....Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who is poised to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, is demanding information and records from Big Tech companies on their alleged "collusion" with the Biden administration to censor conservatives on their platforms.
|
|
Nonprofits
By Roger Sollenberger
.....At least one nonprofit has publicly recognized a sizable contribution—the Campaign Legal Center, a watchdog that, ironically, advocates for greater transparency in political financing, and which received $2.5 million from SBF last year.
CLC spokesperson Brendan Quinn acknowledged the gift, saying in a statement to The Daily Beast that his organization has “a thorough vetting process before accepting significant funding from any entity or individual,” and posts all donor names to its website...
CLC said last week that it could not return the money, because it had already been spent. But Quinn appeared to soften that position after the arrest.
“Usually, political campaigns disgorge questionable funds to a charity. CLC is a charity and contributions made to our organization go to upholding American democracy,” Quinn’s statement said. “However, given that this donor’s alleged actions, as described in [the] indictment, would be in direct conflict with our mission, we are currently exploring our options on how to proceed in these circumstances.”
|
|
The States
By Matt Friedman
.....It’s back. Over the summer, legislative Democrats introduced and attempted to quickly pass a bill to dramatically overhaul New Jersey’s campaign finance laws. Ultimately, it stalled, but Senate President Nick Scutari vowed to bring it up again in the fall. He didn’t, but Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin brought it up this winter.
On Monday, The Assembly Appropriations Committee approved the “Elections Transparency Act,” but one part of it that would significantly increase transparency — requiring campaigns to report big contributions within 96 hours — was excised. It does still include a provision to require “dark money” groups to disclose major donors.
The bill does a lot, including doubling maximum campaign contributions for non-gubernatorial candidates and then allowing them to increase annually based on a formula. Given that contribution limits haven’t increased in almost 20 years, that shouldn’t prove uncontroversial.
What should raise eyebrows is that the bill basically guts New Jersey’s pay-to-play laws that bar contractors from giving to certain candidates and committees. That includes doing away with all local pay-to-play laws that exceed the state laws, which have a giant “fair and open process” loophole that takes the teeth out of them.
To be clear, the state’s weird patchwork of local laws has led to the emergence of PACs and super PACs designed to get around them. But it seems rather than trying to come up with something comprehensive, state lawmakers are just going to ditch them.
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
