We’re Hiring!
Senior Attorney – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC or Virtual Office
The Institute for Free Speech is hiring a Senior Attorney with a minimum of seven years of experience.
This is a rare opportunity to work with a growing team to litigate a long-term legal strategy directed toward the protection of Constitutional rights. We challenge laws, practices, and policies that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms, such as speech codes that censor parents at school board meetings, laws restricting people’s ability to give and receive campaign contributions, and any intrusion into people’s private political associations. You would work to hold censors accountable; and to secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws, regulations, and practices that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, and impose heavy burdens on political activity.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
The Courts
Courthouse News: New York loses bid to dissolve gun lobby giant for fraud
By Josh Russell
The New York attorney general cannot force the shuttering of the National Rifle Association, a state judge ruled on Wednesday.
“Her allegations concern primarily private harm to the NRA and its members and donors, which if proven can be addressed by the targeted, less intrusive relief she seeks through other claims,” Manhattan Supreme Court Judge Joel Cohen wrote this afternoon, referring to a dissolution action brought by Attorney General Letitia James.
“The complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members,” Cohen added…
“Moreover,” the 42-page opinion continues, ”dissolving the NRA could impinge, at least indirectly, on the free speech and assembly rights of its millions of members. While that alone would not preclude statutory dissolution if circumstances otherwise clearly warranted it, the Court believes it is a relevant factor that counsels against State-imposed dissolution, which should be the last option, not the first.”
Privacy
Techdirt: Techdirt Podcast Episode 313: The United States of Anonymous
By Leigh Beadon
Nearly three years ago, we were joined by Professor Jeff Kosseff to discuss his then-new book about Section 230, The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet. Now, Jeff has a new book coming out, about another internet issue that is deeply misunderstood by many people: anonymity. The United States Of Anonymous releases in two weeks, and on today’s episode Jeff joins us to discuss how the right to anonymity has shaped American values, politics, business, security, and discourse.
The States
Seattle Times: WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson announces $9M settlement in grocery industry campaign-finance case
By Jim Brunner
Barely a month after winning an $18 million penalty against a national grocery industry group that violated state campaign-finance laws, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson has signed off on a settlement that cuts the fine in half.
Under the settlement announced Wednesday, the Consumer Brands Association will pay $9 million, including $6 million to the state and $3 million to state food charities — and drop an expected appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The group also formally apologized.
The settlement will finally end a long and twisty legal battle stemming from a 2013 ballot initiative that sought to require labeling of genetically modified food products.
Tampa Bay Times: Florida lawmakers look to limit out-of-state donors on citizens’ initiatives drives
By News Service of Florida
Florida lawmakers are taking another run at large donors to drives to put proposed constitutional amendments on the ballot.
The House on Wednesday voted 77-39 to approve a campaign finance bill that includes placing a $3,000 limit on contributions from out-of-state donors to political committees trying to collect enough petition signatures to move forward with citizens’ initiatives. The Senate could add the limit to a similar bill Thursday.
The House bill would narrow a 2021 law that a federal judge blocked on First Amendment grounds. That law included a $3,000 limit on all donors — not just out-of-state donors — to committees supporting initiative petition drives…
The American Civil Liberties Union and three political committees filed a lawsuit last year challenging the $3,000 contribution limit that applied to Florida and out-of-state donors.
U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor on July 1 issued a preliminary injunction against the law, saying it would improperly curtail political speech…
Supporters of the new bill appeared to try to draw a distinction with the 2021 law because of the focus on out-of-state donors.
Cincinnati.com: Strictly Legal: Racial slur not a public issue
By Jack Greiner
A defamation case brought by a high school football coach may test the limits of anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) provisions. And possibly limit what’s deemed a public issue.
Nathaniel Jones was a teacher and head football coach at St. Augustine High School in Louisiana. On October 4, 2019, someone uploaded a video to social media displaying football players and an assistant coach in the St. Augustine locker room, engaging in a “pre-game chant” using a racial slur. Jones was not in the locker room during the chant. Thereafter, St. Augustine High School terminated Jones. ABC News published an online article entitled “High school football coach fired after using racial slur in pre-game chant.”
Jones brought a defamation suit against ABC News based on the online article. ABC immediately filed a special motion under Louisiana’s anti-SLAPP law to strike the complaint. The trial court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. Jones will now be allowed to proceed with his suit…
Jones essentially proceeded on a “what’s said in the locker room stays in the locker room” strategy. He argued that a private school’s termination of a football coach is not a matter of public concern.
ABC, on the other hand, argued that the matter was a public issue because speech relating to use of a racial slur is inherently a matter of public concern.
