The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 10, 2023 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]. We're Hiring! Communications Director – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC or Virtual Office .....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. New from the Institute for Free Speech Comments to the FEC in Regards to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on “Technological Modernization” By David Keating .....On behalf of the Institute for Free Speech (“IFS”), I submit these comments in response to the Commission’s Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on “Technological Modernization” 87 Fed. Reg. 236 (Dec. 9, 2022). If the phrase “promoted for a fee” is added to §§ 100.26 and 110.11(c)(5)(i) by placing it after the phrase “placed for a fee” as apparently suggested by the proposed rulemaking, the regulation would be impermissibly vague for the reasons explained later in these comments. However, if the phrase is clarified, it could be easily understood and we would have no objection to adding this language to the current regulation, as modified by the Commission’s adoption last month of Agenda Document 22-52-B (REG 2011-02, Final Rule and Explanation and Justification for Internet Communication Disclaimers). Here is one way the phrase could be clarified in the context of the current regulations to remove the ambiguity: PDF FEC Washington Post: George Santos broke campaign finance laws, nonpartisan watchdog says By Isaac Stanley-Becker .....A complaint filed Monday with the Federal Election Commission accused Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), who has admitted to fabricating key details of his biography, of wide-ranging campaign finance violations. The alleged wrongdoing includes masking the true source of his campaign’s funding, misrepresenting his campaign’s spending and using campaign resources to cover personal expenses. Free Expression Wall Street Journal: The White House Covid Censorship Machine By Jenin Younes and Aaron Kheriaty .....Newly released documents show that the White House has played a major role in censoring Americans on social media. Email exchanges between Rob Flaherty, the White House’s director of digital media, and social-media executives prove the companies put Covid censorship policies in place in response to relentless, coercive pressure from the White House—not voluntarily. The emails emerged Jan. 6 in the discovery phase of Missouri v. Biden, a free-speech case brought by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana and four private plaintiffs represented by the New Civil Liberties Alliance. New York Times: A Lecturer Showed a Painting of the Prophet Muhammad. She Lost Her Job. By Vimal Patel .....Erika López Prater, an adjunct professor at Hamline University, said she knew many Muslims have deeply held religious beliefs that prohibit depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. So last semester for a global art history class, she took many precautions before showing a 14th-century painting of Islam’s founder. In the syllabus, she warned that images of holy figures, including the Prophet Muhammad and the Buddha, would be shown in the course. She asked students to contact her with any concerns, and she said no one did. In class, she prepped students, telling them that in a few minutes, the painting would be displayed, in case anyone wanted to leave. Then Dr. López Prater showed the image — and lost her teaching gig. Candidates and Campaigns New York Times: Why the Fringiest Fringe of the G.O.P. Now Has So Much Power Over the Party By Richard Pildes .....[Revolutions in communications and technology] have enabled individual members of Congress to function, even thrive, as free agents. They have flattened institutional authority, including that of the political parties and their leaders. They have allowed individuals and groups to more easily mobilize and sustain opposition to government action and help fuel intense factional conflicts within the parties that leadership has greater difficulty controlling than in the past. Through cable television and social media, even politicians in their first years in office can cultivate a national audience. When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez entered Congress, she already had nine million followers on the major social media platforms, more than four times the number for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and an order of magnitude more than any other Democrat in the House. Recognizing the power social media provides, Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida and a provocateur in the opposition to Kevin McCarthy’s speakership bid, has said he wants to be the A.O.C. of the right. The internet has also generated an explosion of small-donor donations, which enables politicians to raise large amounts of money without depending on party funds or large donors. Election Law Blog: “Why Big-Money Donors Can’t Reel In GOP Rebels” By Richard Pildes .....This WSJ piece has a lot of good detail elaborating on a point I make in my recent NYT essay, which is the way small-dollar donations have enabled the rise of free-agent politicians. This also highlights concerns I’ve raised before about whether small-donor matching programs would further fuel extremism. From the WSJ: CNBC: ‘We were duped’: How George Santos raised money from wealthy GOP donors while lying about his resume By Brian Schwartz .....A member of George Santos’ political team had a plan to raise money for the Republican congressman’s campaign: Impersonate the chief of staff of now House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Wealthy donors received calls and emails from a man who said he was Dan Meyer, McCarthy’s chief of staff, during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles, according to people familiar with the matter. His name was actually Sam Miele, and he worked for Santos raising money for his campaign, according to one GOP donor who contributed to Santos’ campaign. This financier and some others in this story declined to be named in order to speak freely about private discussions. The impersonation of the top House Republican’s chief of staff adds to an emerging picture of a winning congressional campaign propelled by fabrications and questionable tactics. Santos now finds himself in the sights of investigators and in danger of losing his political career even after he’s been sworn into office. In raising money for his campaign, Santos fed donors the same falsehoods he gave voters, campaign fundraisers and others say. Online Speech Platforms Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters By Tim Starks .....Russian influence operations on Twitter in the 2016 presidential election reached relatively few users, most of whom were highly partisan Republicans, and the Russian accounts had no measurable impact in changing minds or influencing voter behavior, according to a study out this morning. The study, which the New York University Center for Social Media and Politics helmed, explores the limits of what Russian disinformation and misinformation was able to achieve on one major social media platform in the 2016 elections. “My personal sense coming out of this is that this got way overhyped,” Josh Tucker, one of the report’s authors who is also the co-director of the New York University center, told me about the meaningfulness of the Russian tweets. “Now we’re looking back at data and we can see how concentrated this was in one small portion of the population, and how the fact that people who were being exposed to these were really, really likely to vote for Trump,” Tucker said. “And then we have this data to show we can’t find any relationship between being exposed to these tweets and people’s change in attitudes.” People United for Privacy: Twitter Restores the Voices of Nonprofit Organizations, Including Ours By Luke Wachob .....[Twitter] just took a major step towards promoting free speech by ending former CEO Jack Dorsey’s ban on “caused-based advertising” from nonprofits, advocacy groups, and other Twitter users. “We believe that cause-based advertising can facilitate public conversation around important topics. Today, we’re relaxing our ads policy for cause-based ads in the US,” Twitter’s Safety team announced on January 3rd. The new direction is a lifeline to charitable organizations and social movements still trying to find their base. Digital advertising on platforms like Twitter offers an affordable means of reaching potential new supporters for startup groups. Ads about social issues can also help raise public awareness of vital causes and spur Americans into action, especially in response to time-sensitive issues or new developments... People United for Privacy Foundation experienced the harm of Twitter’s ad ban firsthand. Slate: How the Supreme Court Could Encourage Platform Transparency By Ramya Krishnan .....There is a strong argument that some of these requirements are drafted too broadly, and that they would impose a too-heavy tax on the platforms’ editorial decision-making, which generally enjoys First Amendment protection. But it is one thing to say that particular transparency mandates are unconstitutional and should be struck down, and another to say that the First Amendment forecloses transparency mandates entirely, as the companies and some of their supporters seem to be arguing. The mere fact that platforms exercise editorial judgment through their content moderation decisions does not mean that any law requiring platform transparency is necessarily unconstitutional. It is not, after all, only the platforms that have an interest in speaking here. The Florida and Texas laws were born largely out of frustrations over bans and suspensions of individual speakers, and though it is mistaken to say that social media users have First Amendment rights against private platforms, a central purpose of the First Amendment is to foster public discourse that enables democratic decision-making. A system in which users don’t understand the rules governing speech on the platforms is fundamentally at odds with this purpose. If we don’t know the rules, how are we to follow them? How are we to know if the companies themselves are following 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 ‌ ‌ ‌ 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]