The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech February 21, 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]. In the News Daily Caller: Social Media Portion Of New York’s Gun Law Gives The State ‘Arbitrary And Unbounded Discretion,’ Experts Say By Bronson Winslow .....A portion of New York’s concealed carry law, which mandates that applicants turn over their social media accounts to the state for review, imposes an unjustified burden on applicants while giving the state arbitrary and unbounded discretion that violates the First Amendment, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation… “New York has no basis for prying into your personal or political views when it’s deciding whether it can take away your constitutional rights,” Institute For Free Speech President David Keating told the DCNF. Just Security: Mapping the Key Arguments in Supreme Court Amicus Briefs in Gonzalez v. Google By Justin Cole and Aaron Fisher .....In late February, the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments to consider the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230, which shields tech companies from liability for content posted by users on their internet platforms. Gonzalez v. Google LLC, the more prominent of two cases before the Court, examines whether Section 230 immunizes Google for YouTube’s targeted recommendations of information provided by users who are third-party content providers, or instead provides immunity only when platforms engage in traditional editorial functions… While amici make many arguments on different sides of the central issue in Gonzalez, we have distilled the most common arguments to provide a primer on what the Supreme Court might consider during oral argument and subsequent internal deliberations... Argument 5: “A correctly cabined understanding of [S]ection 230 allows consumers to shop for different content-moderation and recommendation regimes. Importantly, it also allows all parties to enforce the terms of service.” Briefs that make this argument: Institute for Free Speech; Center for Renewing America, Inc. in support of neither party. Supreme Court Washington Post: Supreme Court hears a case that could transform the internet By Cat Zakrzewski and Robert Barnes .....The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a lawsuit that argues tech companies should be legally liable for harmful content that their algorithms promote. The Gonzalez family contends that by recommending ISIS-related content, Google’s YouTube acted as a recruiting platform for the group in violation of U.S. laws against aiding and abetting terrorists. At stake is Section 230, a provision passed in 1996, years before the founding of Google and most modern tech giants, but one that courts have found shields platforms from culpability over the posts, photos and videos that people share on their services. Congress U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse: Whitehouse, Cicilline Reintroduce DISCLOSE Act To End Corrupting Influence Of Dark Money In American Democracy .....U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Representative David Cicilline (D-RI) today led 162 colleagues in both houses of Congress in introducing the DISCLOSE Act, legislation to end the scourge of dark money, shine a bright light of transparency on politics, and make government more accountable to the will of voters… “One of the gravest dangers undermining our democracy is the power of dark money in our elections,” said Leader Schumer. “The DISCLOSE Act would provide the transparency the American people want and need, pulling back the veil on billionaires and giant corporations trying to make sure government works for them. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his tireless leadership on this issue and I look forward to bringing this bill to the Senate floor.” Free Expression Reason ("Volokh Conspiracy"): My Article in the Journal of Free Speech Law, "Should the Law Limit Private-Employer-Imposed Speech Restrictions?" By Eugene Volokh .....It's now out, in the symposium on Non-Governmental Restrictions on Free Speech. The Introduction and the Conclusion: The States Wyoming Tribune Eagle: Political loophole bill on its way to Gordon By Maya Shimizu Harris, Wyoming News Exchange .....Federal political action committees will likely have to follow state reporting requirements in the future if they’re supporting state and local candidates in Wyoming... Senate File 40, sponsored by Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, specifies that federal PACs are only exempt from the state’s election reporting requirements if they are exclusively making contributions or expenditures for federal candidates or federal issues. Rep. Jeanette Ward, R-Casper, brought an amendment to the bill on Thursday, which would have also exempted federal PACs from Wyoming’s election reporting requirements if they were spending $2,000 or less per candidate, per election in Wyoming. The amendment, she explained, was meant to put “sideboards” on the bill so that it doesn’t go after small spenders. The amendment failed, however. Some people have previously made the argument that the bill would hinder grassroots involvement in political campaigns. Chair of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, pushed the same point on Thursday while speaking in support of Ward’s amendment. KHQ: Bill targeting political spending by corporations with foreign ownership passes Washington state Senate By Noah Corrin .....The Washington state Senate passed a bill targeting political spending by corporations with significant foreign ownership on Wednesday along party lines. Senate Bill 5284 was introduced by Sen. Joe Nguyen, D-White Center, and sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, D-Spokane, among others. The elements targeting foreign influence are modeled after a Seattle law that bans political donations from companies with at least five percent foreign ownership. SB 5284 would apply that standard to the whole state. In addition to targeting corporations with foreign ownership, the bill would also change expenditure reporting requirements for campaigns, compel corporations to certify no foreign influence when making independent expenditures or contributions and increase oversight of online political ads by putting responsibility of those ads on the person placing 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]