In the News
WTIC NewsTalk 1080 (“The Todd Feinburg Show”): Brad Smith 10/22/2021
Todd is first joined by Brad Smith, Chairman & Founder of the Institute of Free Speech, to speak on the state of school board meetings and the push from Democrats and the teachers union to silence parents, or paint them as extremists when it comes to what their kids learn in the local education system.
ICYMI
This “Free Speech Week,” Senate Dems Vote for Political Speech Restrictions
By Nathan Maxwell
Some federal lawmakers have stopped at nothing this year to advance their bundle of political speech restrictions, first as H.R. 1/S. 1 (the “For the People Act”) and now as S. 2747, the so-called “Freedom to Vote Act.” When it fails, it’s reintroduced. When it’s criticized, it undergoes a superficial compromise. And when it’s Free Speech Week, it gets every Democratic vote in the United States Senate.*
Thanks to unanimous opposition from Senate Republicans, the measure failed to advance Wednesday, once again frustrating its direct attacks on free political speech. The bill’s “Honest Ads Act” is one such attack. Grassroots organizations and advocacy groups that rely on cost-effective internet communication would be harmed the most. Internet platforms hosting ads about legislation or political issues would have to maintain public databases detailing granular information about the ads, their reach, and their sponsors for any group or person spending over $500. It’s not an effort to rein in stray campaign speech, which is already aggressively regulated. The bill’s vague language would apply to issue ads that don’t mention a candidate at all. Any ad concerning a “national legislative issue of public importance” (an undefined term in the bill) will suffice. The increased cost and new liabilities for hosting such messages would discourage many internet companies from running them at all, and the result will be a much less vibrant political discourse online.
The Courts
Arkansas Times: Lawyer fired for criticizing his state representative wins job back permanently
By Austin Bailey
Casey Copeland, the state contractor who was fired after emailing Rep. Charlene Fite (R-Alma) to criticize her vote to deny gender-affirming care to transgender youth, has had his state contract reinstated permanently…
Fite tattled about the email to Copeland’s bosses, and Copeland was promptly dismissed.
An August preliminary injunction barring state officials from terminating Copeland’s contract was made permanent by a federal district court on October 19…
“State legislators may not like hearing from constituents who are unhappy with their actions, but they can’t use the power of the state to retaliate against people because they disagree with them on a certain issue,” said Holly Dickson, ACLU of Arkansas executive director.
Congress
Yale Law Journal: A Flood of Judicial Lobbying: Amicus Influence and Funding Transparency
By Sheldon Whitehouse
This Essay explores how amicus briefs became a tool for coordinated judicial lobbying by dark-money interests. I show how current funding-disclosure rules for amici fail to provide genuine transparency—undermining fairness—and discuss reforms that could improve the judiciary’s amicus-disclosure regime and restore faith in the courts.
Free Speech
The Federalist Radio Hour: Where Is The Line Between Free Speech And ‘Dark Money’?
On this episode of “The Federalist Radio Hour,” Andrew Langer, president of the Institute for Liberty, joins Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky to discuss the tension between the First Amendment right to free speech and what is often labeled “dark money.”
“If you’re advocating for ideas and for changes in the public discourse, that’s something that should be very much protected speech, and the public’s interest in knowing who was giving money to those things should not outweigh someone’s right to engage in speech anonymously or engaging their freedom of association anonymously,” Langer said. “Because as others have pointed out … this is an essential element of that free speech. Sometimes people cannot speak out in their own names without having retribution taken against them.”
Online Speech Platforms
New York Times: Internal Alarm, Public Shrugs: Facebook’s Employees Dissect Its Election Role
By Ryan Mac and Sheera Frenkel
Sixteen months before last November’s presidential election, a researcher at Facebook described an alarming development. She was getting content about the conspiracy theory QAnon within a week of opening an experimental account, she wrote in an internal report.
On Nov. 5, two days after the election, another Facebook employee posted a message alerting colleagues that comments with “combustible election misinformation” were visible below many posts.
Four days after that, a company data scientist wrote in a note to his co-workers that 10 percent of all U.S. views of political material — a startlingly high figure — were of posts that alleged the vote was fraudulent.
In each case, Facebook’s employees sounded an alarm about misinformation and inflammatory content on the platform and urged action — but the company failed or struggled to address the issues. The internal dispatches were among a set of Facebook documents obtained by The New York Times that give new insight into what happened inside the social network before and after the November election, when the company was caught flat-footed as users weaponized its platform to spread lies about the vote.
Wall Street Journal: Facebook’s Internal Chat Boards Show Politics Often at Center of Decision Making
By Keach Hagey and Jeff Horwitz
Many Republicans, from Mr. Trump down, say Facebook discriminates against conservatives. The documents reviewed by the Journal didn’t render a verdict on whether bias influences its decisions overall. They do show that employees and their bosses have hotly debated whether and how to restrain right-wing publishers, with more-senior employees often providing a check on agitation from the rank and file. The documents viewed by the Journal, which don’t capture all of the employee messaging, didn’t mention equivalent debates over left-wing publications.
Other documents also reveal that Facebook’s management team has been so intently focused on avoiding charges of bias that it regularly places political considerations at the center of its decision making.
Facebook employees, as seen in a large quantity of internal message-board conversations, have agitated consistently for the company to act against far-right sites…
Facebook employees focused special attention on Breitbart, the documents show, criticizing Facebook for showcasing the site’s content in News Tab and for helping it to sell ads. They also alleged Facebook gave special treatment to Breitbart and other conservative publishers, helping them skirt penalties for circulating misinformation or hate speech.
Washington Post: Twitter algorithms amplify conservative content more than that of the political left, researchers find
By Taylor Telford
An internal evaluation of Twitter’s recommendation algorithms concluded that they amplify right-leaning political content more than left-leaning content, company researchers announced Thursday, undercutting allegations by many conservatives who contend they are being censored on the platform.
Twitter researchers analyzed millions of 2020 tweets by elected officials in seven countries — Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Spain, Britain and United States — as well as posts that linked to political content from news outlets. Researchers relied on outside experts to determine what was right- or left-leaning rather than deciding for themselves.
“Our results reveal a remarkably consistent trend: In 6 out of 7 countries studied, the mainstream political right enjoys higher algorithmic amplification than the mainstream political left,” the researchers wrote in a 27-page report.
Wall Street Journal: Facebook Increasingly Suppresses Political Movements It Deems Dangerous
By Jeff Horwitz and Justin Scheck
The reality is that Facebook is making decisions on an ad hoc basis, in essence playing whack-a-mole with movements it deems dangerous. By taking on the role of refereeing public discourse, Facebook has strayed from the public commitment to neutrality long espoused by Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg.
And because of the enormous size of its global user base—the latest count is about 2.9 billion—its decisions about whom to silence, with no public disclosure or right of appeal, can have great impact.
The States
The Center Square: Legislation would allow Pennsylvanians to sue big tech companies for censorship
By Natalie Kapustik
Two Pennsylvania state senators said recently they want to hold social media companies accountable for religious or political censorship.
Sens. Doug Mastriano, R-Gettysburg, and Scott Hutchinson, R-Oil City, said their Senate Bill 604, also called the Social Media Accountability Act, would create a private right of action to allow residents to sue social media companies like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter for banning or censoring their account due to sharing religious or political beliefs on the platform.
A censored or banned user can seek up to $75,000 in statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and other forms of relief, the senators said.
One of the bill provisions requires the social media company to notify the user as to why their account was banned or disabled within 30 days and offer a course of action for reinstatement.
Mastriano described the proposal as an effective way to uphold the first amendment by fighting back against big tech companies that are limiting free speech…
The bill was sent to the Senate Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee for consideration.
