The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech March 9, 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 San Francisco Chronicle: Ninth Circuit upholds S.F. law requiring campaign ad disclosures By Bob Egelko .....A law passed by San Francisco voters requiring committees that fund printed or broadcast political ads to identify their top financial donors does not violate freedom of speech, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. The law was part of Proposition F, sponsored by then-Supervisor Gordon Mar and approved by 77% of the city’s voters in November 2019. Following city elections in 2018 in which spending reached record levels, the measure went beyond disclosure requirements in state law by requiring committees financing local campaign ads to name, in the ads, their top two contributors of $5,000 or more. The suit was filed by the Institute for Free Speech, a nonprofit that has challenged campaign finance regulations in other states... They argued that Prop. F’s donor-identification requirement would distract readers, listeners and viewers from the message of a campaign advertisement, making it “all but impossible for groups to communicate effectively with San Francisco voters,” as the Institute for Free Speech put it in a summary of the case. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday that the law provides voters with information about ballot issues and does not unduly burden free expression. “Understanding what entity is funding a communication allows citizens to make informed choices in the political marketplace,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in the 3-0 ruling, upholding U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer’s decision last year to let Prop. F remain in effect... Alan Gura, a lawyer for the Institute for Free Speech, said the plaintiffs were “disappointed by the ruling and will seek further review.” They could ask the full 29-judge court to order a new hearing before a larger panel or appeal directly to the Supreme Court. New from the Institute for Free Speech Moms Sue Wilson County School Board over Censorship .....A group of Wilson County moms today filed a federal lawsuit against the Wilson County Board of Education for violating their First Amendment right to speak at the board’s public meetings. When Robin Lemons decided to speak to the Wilson County school board last fall about how school officials ignored and mishandled an allegation of sexual misconduct involving her fourth-grade daughter, she worried the school board might censor her. She was right. As soon as she started criticizing the school director during the October 3, 2022, meeting, Board Chairman Jamie Farough told Lemons to “stop talking.” Farough cut her off because she had not announced her home address to the crowd—a widely ignored rule that the school board did not enforce against any other speaker last year. Lemons complied with the request, but now is a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the Wilson County Board of Education for violating her First Amendment rights. The Wilson County chapter of Moms for Liberty and its chair Amanda Dunagan-Price join her as plaintiffs in the case... “School boards cannot selectively enforce rules to censor speakers who criticize them,” said Institute for Free Speech Attorney Brett Nolan, who is representing the plaintiffs. “That is a basic guarantee of the First Amendment, and it applies even when a speaker’s criticism is harsh and uncomfortable.” Free Expression People United for Privacy: A Free Speech Icon Turns 100 .....In a long and distinguished career in public service, James L. Buckley held office as a U.S. Senator, an undersecretary of state, and a federal judge. Today, he turns 100 years old. Among his many accomplishments, then-Senator Buckley brought the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court’s seminal ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. For nearly 50 years, that decision has set the terms for legal debates about government efforts to regulate political speech and campaigns. In crucial moments, it has served as a backstop for Americans’ First Amendment rights to join together in support of a cause and speak to fellow citizens about public issues and candidates. Most recently, Buckley played a major role in the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta. That decision struck down the California Attorney General’s demand for nonprofit donor lists as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In response, a number of states have acted to improve their legal protections for personal privacy. Online Speech Platforms Racket News: My Statement to Congress By Matt Taibbi .....The original promise of the Internet was that it might democratize the exchange of information globally. A free internet would overwhelm all attempts to control information flow, its very existence a threat to anti-democratic forms of government everywhere. What we found in the [Twitter] Files was a sweeping effort to reverse that promise, and use machine learning and other tools to turn the internet into an instrument of censorship and social control. Unfortunately, our own government appears to be playing a lead role. The Hill: Are Democrats behind the pro-Trump bot explosion? By Merrill Matthews .....A recent Associated Press story asserts, “Over the past 11 months, someone created thousands of fake, automated Twitter accounts — perhaps hundreds of thousands of them — to offer a stream of praise for Donald Trump.” The story’s unanswered question is who’s behind the effort? Maybe pro-Trumpers. But the better guess is Democrats. The States Las Vegas Review-Journal: Editorial: First Amendment is under siege from all sides .....The Orlando Sentinel reported this week that a Florida lawmaker of Republican persuasion has offered a bill to require bloggers to register with the government or face fines... The sponsor, state Sen. Jason Brodeur, who represents a district near Orlando, argues the bill is “an electioneering issue, not a free speech issue” and will provide voters with information about who is attempting to influence public policy. That’s weak tea. It may be news to Mr. Brodeur, but electioneering enjoys free speech protections. “The idea that bloggers criticizing a politician should register with the government is insane,” Newt Gingrich tweeted. He’s correct, of course. Yet “good government” types, many on the left, have for years demanded that interest groups engaging in political activity register with the government or face legal consequences. The archives are littered with examples of grassroots organizers — and even radio talk show hosts — becoming entangled in byzantine campaign finance laws regulating expenditures and political activism. In 1995, for instance, the U.S. Supreme Court was forced to step in when Ohio officials fined a woman for distributing anonymous leaflets advocating against a proposed school tax hike. It’s also worth noting that a good many Senate Democrats, including Nevada’s two members of the upper chamber, have embraced a proposal to rewrite the First Amendment to give federal bureaucrats more authority to regulate political speech, potentially even banning certain campaign discourse as an election neared. Lawfare: State Legislatures Threaten Right to Anonymous Speech By Jeff Kosseff .....Free speech in the United States always has included anonymous speech. Thomas Paine signed Common Sense as “Written by an Englishman.” Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay signed the Federalist Papers as Publius. And since the earliest days of the internet, sites such as Yahoo, Reddit, and Twitter have allowed users to post candid thoughts under many colorful pseudonyms. In the past few months, the tradition of anonymous speech has faced threats from state legislatures nationwide. The bills might have good intentions—such as protecting children online or combating dirty politics—but they threaten the ability of people to communicate without providing their identities. The most recent—and direct—threat comes from Florida. Senate Bill 1316, introduced in late February, requires any blogger who receives compensation for blogging about an elected state officer to register with the state Office of Legislative Services or Commission on Ethics within five days. Minnesota Reformer: Election bill would make it illegal to knowingly spread false information that impedes voting By Deena Winter .....Despite a dozen hearings in the Minnesota House and Senate, lawmakers have scarcely mentioned a key provision of a major elections bill that would make it a crime to spread election misinformation to try to stop people from voting. The Democracy for the People Act, (HF3), includes a provision that would make it a gross misdemeanor — punishable by up to a year in jail and a $3,000 fine — to knowingly spread materially false information with the intent to impede or prevent people from voting. It would apply before 60 days an election. It would be illegal to spread false information about the “time, place or manner of holding an election,” qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility, and threats to physical safety associated with voting. 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]