We’re Hiring!
2022 Summer Associate Legal Fellowship
The 2022 Institute for Free Speech Summer Associate Legal Fellowship is a unique opportunity for current law school students to explore a career in public interest and First Amendment law. The program is open to students who will finish their first or second year of law school by the summer of 2022.
Fellows are expected to work full time for 10 weeks in our Washington, D.C. headquarters, but other arrangements may be available to especially outstanding candidates.
Fellows are eligible to earn $10,000 in salary for their 10 weeks of employment.
During the fellowship, students will work with Institute for Free Speech attorneys for a portion of their time. Each fellow will also be expected to complete a project. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in suggesting a project as part of their application.
Those with interest are strongly encouraged to apply as early as possible. Applications received after November 30, 2021 will not be eligible for a $10,000 paid fellowship. Applications received after November 23 will be at a strong disadvantage. Additional fellowships may be available after November 30, but compensation is not guaranteed.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
In the News
National Review: Democrats Propose a Federal Speech Czar
By Bradley A. Smith
Deep inside the Democrats’ latest “compromise” proposal on elections and campaign finance is a new cup of poison for free speech and fair campaigns.
Of course, the sponsors bragged that they dropped some controversial provisions. One such provision altered the Federal Election Commission (FEC), which polices campaign-finance laws, from a bipartisan agency to one with a partisan majority appointed by the president.
The bill, now dubbed the Freedom to Vote Act, abandons that direct attempt to give the president a partisan majority at the FEC. But it still abolishes the principle of bipartisan approval of enforcement actions. Even worse, it rigs court review of FEC decisions against defendants.
In a sign of the bill’s hostility to free speech, the measure also proposes doubling the statute of limitations for most violations of federal campaign-finance laws to 10 years. That’s longer than the statute of limitations for the crime of attempted assassination of a member of Congress.
Washington Examiner: Appeals Court Should Affirm Protection of Public Employees’ Off‐Job Speech
By Walter Olson
When may the government fire or discipline public employees for off‐the‐job speech? Salvatore Davi is a hearing officer at a New York state agency that hears appeals of welfare claims. In a private Facebook discussion Davi made comments critical of permanent welfare dependency and argued that a public safety net should be intended to help people regain self‐sufficiency. These comments offended another member of the group, who complained to Davi’s employer and leaked a copy of his comments to a legal activist group representing welfare recipients…
When (via the informer) the New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) learned of Davi’s comments it attempted to fire him. He challenged the firing and prevailed in district court, which granted him partial summary judgment. OTDA has appealed that decision to the Second Circuit.
The Cato Institute and the Institute for Free Speech have filed an amicus brief in support of Davi arguing that the OTDA’s attempt to fire him violates the standards set forth in Garcetti [v. Ceballos] and improperly penalized a public employee for the expression of ideas away from the workplace.
ICYMI
C-SPAN (“Washington Journal”): Brad Smith on Free Speech Issues
Hosted by Bill Scanlan
Former FEC Chair Brad Smith, founder and chair of the Institute for Free Speech, talked about free speech issues, such as Senate Democrats’ push for campaign finance reform and allegations of free speech infringement at school board meetings by parents protesting COVID-19 rules.
Washington Examiner: The Freedom to Vote Act is remarkably anti-voter
By Nathan Maxwell
Despite the bill’s numerous rewrites, [the Freedom to Vote Act is] chock full of anti-voter measures that undermine true representation.
Almost a third of the proposal from Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Joe Manchin is not dedicated to voting. Instead, it’s devoted to producing politicians who are insulated from their critics and less responsive to their communities. Public communications that so much as mention a candidate, including nearly all elected officials, would be susceptible to regulation as campaign ads for more than 10 months out of any election year. That will prevent many nonprofit and community organizations from speaking out about key legislation or galvanizing the public to do the same. How is this better for democracy?…
Worse still, groups could face bureaucratic investigations and debilitating fines for daring to speak. The bill takes power away from the Federal Election Commission’s bipartisan appointees and turns the agency’s general counsel into a speech czar who will dictate many enforcement actions. This unelected bureaucrat, who would not be subject to the Senate’s advise and consent power, will wield tremendous influence in deciding which groups can speak freely…
The Klobuchar-Manchin bill would deter civic participation, undermine the First Amendment, and misinform voters. The bill’s cynical speech provisions utterly contradict its proponents’ stated mission of empowering the people.
Congress
People United for Privacy: Donor Disclosure Aids Extremists, Punishes Law-Abiding Americans
Illegal activities carried out by extremists or foreign actors only serve to sow divide within our communities and to undermine our democracy. Yet, instead of putting forth real solutions that would address extremism or combat foreign interference, Congressional Democrats are pushing legislation that would require charitable and nonprofit organizations to disclose the names and home addresses of their donors to the government. These “solutions,” known as the DISCLOSE Act and Honest Ads Act, do nothing to address extremism or foreign interference. Instead, both bills work to silence millions of American voices by stripping them of their First Amendment rights.
The Courts
Washington Post: ACLU sues Oklahoma, saying law restricting teaching of gender and race theories is unconstitutional
By Bryan Pietsch
An Oklahoma law that educators say restricts discussions of race and sex in classrooms is unconstitutional, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
The civil rights organization and groups of students and educators say in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the state’s governor, attorney general and top education officials that the law violates students’ and educators’ First and 14th Amendment rights. They are seeking a preliminary injunction that would block the law from being enforced.
The law, which went into effect in July, is one of a handful passed by Republican-controlled states that are seen by many as seeking to ban discussion of critical race theory…
But the broad language in Oklahoma’s law leaves educators with an “impossible” and unconstitutional choice: “avoid topics related to race or sex in class materials and discussions or risk losing their teaching licenses for violating the law,” the ACLU said, adding that the suit is the first challenge in federal court to one of the bans…
The legislation has led some schools in Oklahoma to tell teachers not to use terms like “diversity” and “white privilege” in their lessons, and prompted some school districts to remove books like “To Kill a Mockingbird” from reading lists, the lawsuit says.
Internet Speech Regulation
Washington Post: Why outlawing harmful social media content would face an uphill legal battle
By Jeff Kosseff and Daphne Keller
The question is whether Congress can regulate everyone’s speech by telling platforms which of our currently legal posts must be banished to the bottom of the news feed or promoted to the top. A law like that would use government power to restrict Internet users’ speech. Courts would rightly scrutinize it under the First Amendment.
Even proposals that tackle only amplification of genuinely illegal content — for example, by eliminating platforms’ Section 230 immunities for defamation — would raise real concerns. We already know what happens when platforms are put in charge of deciding which user speech violates the law: They err on the side of taking down lawful speech to protect themselves. Facebook notoriously took down images of law enforcement abusing protesters in Ecuador based on a fake claim of copyright infringement, for example. The tools platforms adopt to police user content can also cause new harms, disproportionately penalizing users from minority or marginalized groups or invading users’ privacy. A law that gave platforms this kind of policing duty for ranked news feeds, recommendations or search results would concentrate those harms into the very places where speakers most want their speech to appear — the places where other people will see it.
The States
Pasadena Now: Is the Money Corrupt or the Politician?
By André Coleman
Several local residents cited L.A.’s campaign contribution limits as a model for Pasadena during Monday’s City Council meeting.
As one caller said, “In L.A., the limit is $800 and there are way more people there.”
Maybe the caller should have looked more closely at what’s going on in the City of Angels.
L.A. City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas, a former county supervisor, is under indictment on corruption charges…
[T]hree years ago, the FBI raided the home and offices of Councilman Jose Huizar…
This is happening in a city where council members make at least $207,000 a year and cannot accept donations over $800,
I am not claiming those politicians are guilty. The courts will decide that. But this I do know: a corrupt politician will take an envelope full of greenbacks no matter what the city’s campaign finance limits are.
Hell, ban campaign donations altogether every place and it won’t stop a candidate hell bent on fleecing voters.
Locally, incumbent City Councilmembers will have no problems maintaining their seats. While the $4,900 checks pour in to them the incumbents will be out knocking on doors and talking to voters, while their opponents struggle to find the money for mailers.
It’s already damn near impossible to beat an incumbent in Pasadena.
