This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected].
|
|
In the News
By Ty Tagami
.....A federal judge ordered Forsyth County Schools to stop enforcing its ban on reading aloud from school library books at school board meetings.
U.S. District Judge Richard W. Story’s order, signed Tuesday, comes after a group of parents calling themselves the “Mama Bears” filed a lawsuit alleging the board had violated their constitutional free speech rights.
The school board had permanently banned one of the parents, Alison Hair, from attending its meetings until she promised to follow its meeting rules. The rules required “civil” engagement and prohibited “profane,” “rude” or defamatory remarks and personal attacks.
The board decided Hair violated the rules when she stood at the speaker’s lectern in March and read from a young adult novel she thought was sexually explicit. She said it was in her son’s middle school library.
Story’s order comes after a temporary injunction against Forsyth that he issued in November.
His final order permanently bans a prohibition on speakers at board meetings from reading or quoting from books available in school libraries or classrooms. And it says the board can no longer prohibit personally addressing board members and the superintendent. The order also permanently prohibits “any restriction on profane, uncivil or abusive remarks” at the meetings.
|
|
By Maxine Bernstein
.....A lawsuit by Portland State University professor Bruce Gilley can proceed against the University of Oregon over his temporary ban last year from the UO’s Twitter account on equity issues, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernandez denied the UO’s motion to dismiss Gilley’s lawsuit, saying the political science professor raised legitimate claims that the 60-day blocking last June violated his free speech rights.
|
|
By Tiffany Donnelly
In Hetherington, U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers ruled that the First Amendment protects a candidate’s right to express his party affiliation in nonpartisan races. But school board elections are already politically charged, even without candidates saying “magic words” like Republican or Democrat. The intensity of a candidate’s partisanship does not change just because he can suddenly express his party affiliation out loud.
This First Amendment victory is a win for voters, who can now more clearly and quickly learn truthful information about candidates. This allows voters to have transparency about the candidates and decide for themselves if partisan affiliation is important.
|
|
Free Expression
By Nikolas Lanum
.....The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum kicked out a dozen Catholic high school students and their chaperones for wearing beanies inscribed with pro-life messages.
On Jan. 20, students and chaperones from Our Lady of the Rosary School based out of Greenville, South Carolina, traveled to Washington, D.C., for the annual National March for Life. The group members were all wearing matching blue beanies with the words "Rosary PRO-LIFE."
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), representing the parents of some of the students involved, alleged that the museum staff mocked the students, hurled expletives and claimed the museum was a "neutral zone" where political or religious messages were not allowed.
|
|
By Aaron Kliegman
.....The 1792 Exchange, a nonprofit committed to protecting other nonprofits, small businesses, individuals and philanthropic organizations from "woke capitalism," released [a] report to spotlight companies that are undermining free speech and free enterprise by prioritizing ideology in their business practices — often with the financial backing of unbeknownst Americans who invested to make a profit, not to pursue a political cause.
The report was also designed to highlight "reliable and respectful" vendors that are less likely to cancel a contract or deny services based on views or beliefs…
Fitzpatrick cited a hypothetical example of an organization that relies on credit card processing from a big corporation to conduct business: "Imagine you donate to a certain cause or are seen wearing a certain hat at a political rally, and then you have your services denied at a big corporation," he said. "The idea is to equip those who are vulnerable."
|
|
Candidates and Campaigns
By Gabe Kaminsky
.....Several members of Congress have been targeted by thieves who nabbed hundreds of thousands of dollars combined from their campaign accounts as fraudsters and cybercriminals continue to exploit entities involved in federal systems for major gains, according to Federal Election Commission filings reviewed by the Washington Examiner.
Federal campaigns and political action committees reportedly hemorrhaged at least $2.7 million in 2021 due to theft and fraud, which has also been rampant in separate government-run systems like the taxpayer-backed COVID-19 relief system...
"The reality is that there are just straight up criminals who are using the internet to steal money from victims, and it's not just Nigerian princes anymore," Dan Backer, a campaign finance lawyer for the litigation and political firm Chalmers & Adams, told the Washington Examiner. "As a consequence, every campaign and political entity ought to look at their financial controls and think about beefing them up."
|
|
The States
By David McGarry
.....The Washington state legislature is considering a new mandatory voting proposal, S.B. 5209, that would compel registered voters to return ballots in each primary and general election. The proposal is "about behavior modification," Sen. Patty Kuderer (D–Bellevue) argued at a committee meeting on Tuesday, likening the government's role in promoting voting to that of a parent.
To its credit, the bill states that voters may return blank ballots and allows citizens to opt out of registering to vote at all. It establishes no punishment for non-compliance.
As written, S.B. 5209 is essentially unenforceable. It is nevertheless bad policy since it would deploy the state's authority, albeit impotently, to compel political speech.
S.B. 5209's lead sponsor, Sen. Sam Hunt (D–Olympia), tells Reason his bill wouldn't violate citizens' free speech rights. "People eligible to vote have the option of opting out by filing a form," with election officials, says Hunt. "They also have the option of sending in a blank ballot to meet their civic duty of casting a ballot. Nothing in the bill requires them to vote for a candidate of issue. It requires them to participate."
"Even with its contradictory language and lack of penalties, SB 5209 is unconstitutional," says Andy Craig, director of election policy at the Rainey Center and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. "Under the First Amendment, you can't force people to vote, just like you can't force people to say the Pledge of Allegiance," he adds. "There's a long tradition of Americans abstaining from the polls for religious, philosophical, or political reasons, as is their right."
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
