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.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
The Courts
Education Week: Lawsuit Challenges N.H. Law That Limits School Lessons on Race
By The Associated Press
A New Hampshire teacher’s union, several educators, and parents sued the state’s top education, human rights, and law enforcement officials Monday over a state law that limits the discussion of systemic racism and other topics, saying it curtails speech, limits the free exchange of ideas, and hurts students.
The “Prohibition on Teaching Discrimination” law, passed in June, prohibits teaching children that they are inferior, racist, sexist, or oppressive by virtue of their race, gender, or other characteristics.
Congress
The Hill: Democrats push Manchin on ‘nuclear option’ for voting rights
By Jordain Carney
Senate Democrats are escalating pressure on Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to get behind using the “nuclear option” to change the filibuster and break a months-long stalemate on voting rights legislation…
A group of Democrats, tapped by Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), met with Manchin Tuesday as part of rolling discussions. But Manchin, simultaneously, is pushing for rules changes to be bipartisan and holding talks with Republicans…
As part of the effort to find a path forward, Schumer appointed a group of Democratic senators, who lead the talks on voting rights legislation, to spearhead discussions within the caucus about how to change the Senate rules. That group includes Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)…
“Little by little we’re making progress,” Kaine said about the discussions with Manchin, adding that they have a “narrow task but we’re making some progress.” …
Manchin caught the attention of voting rights activists this week when asked about a carve out for voting rights, an idea has previously opposed, he told reporters that “we’re talking about that. Talking about everything, the rules.” …
Manchin, as first reported by The Hill, is having discussions with Republicans about smaller rules changes that would leave the filibuster intact, with an eye toward making it easier to get debate on bills and amendment votes.
The Hill: Democrats introduce bill to end political spending by foreign-owned corporations
By Karl Evers-Hillstrom
House Democrats reintroduced a bill Tuesday that would block foreign-owned corporations from spending company funds to influence U.S. elections.
The bill would extend the federal ban on political donations from foreign nationals to multinational companies that are at least partially owned by foreign nationals. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend unlimited sums to influence elections, some U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies have made large donations to super PACs…
The bill is backed by watchdog groups that say that loopholes in campaign finance law make the U.S. vulnerable to foreign influence…
“Americans deserve to know who is trying to influence our voices and our votes, and foreign entities should have zero role in determining American elections,” Karen Hobert Flynn, president of Common Cause, said in a statement…
“The American people understand that foreign influence, through any form, has no place in our elections,” Ron Fein, legal director of advocacy group Free Speech For People, said in a statement. “Concealing such influence via corporate spending presents serious harm to our democracy.”
Free Speech
Reason: The Second Great Age of Political Correctness
By Greg Lukianoff
Political correctness didn’t decline and fall. It went underground and then rose again. If anything, it’s stronger than ever today. Yet some influential figures on the left still downplay the problem, going so far as to pretend that the increase in even tenured professors being fired for off-limits speech is a sign of a healthy campus. And this unwillingness to recognize a serious problem in academia has helped embolden culture warriors on the right, who have launched their own attacks on free speech and viewpoint diversity in the American education system.
We’ve fully entered the Second Great Age of Political Correctness. If we are to find a way out, we must understand how we got here and admit the true depths of the problem.
Candidates and Campaigns
Washington Post: Want to push back against Republican authoritarians? Expose their donors.
By Brian Klaas
To save democracy, we need to impose a substantial financial cost on politicians who continue to embrace authoritarianism…
The answer is simple: make embracing authoritarianism costly enough that some elected Republicans reconsider. To do that, corporate America needs to stop funding politicians who attack the foundations of our democratic system.
Let’s not be naive: Corporations view political donations as a way to hedge their risks, not to make the world a better place. Most companies donate to Republicans and Democrats alike, hoping that will protect them from an unexpected election swing. Fortune 500 companies aren’t aiming to save democracy — they’re maneuvering to save themselves from unwanted taxes and regulation.
There was a glimmer of hope that corporate America had nonetheless reached its breaking point after Jan. 6, when major corporations announced that they would suspend political funding. But those commitments have been long forgotten, and the Republican Party has recently been raking in cash from corporate donors.
Online Speech Platforms
CNN: Top Meta exec blames users for spreading misinformation
By Brian Fung
In an interview over the weekend with Axios on HBO, [Meta executive Andrew] Bosworth said it is not up to Meta to stifle the views of individuals who wish to express themselves by sharing their beliefs.
“The individual humans are the ones who choose to believe or not believe a thing; they’re the ones that choose to share or not to share a thing,” Bosworth told Axios…
Pressed further on vaccine hesitancy and whether Meta may be contributing to it despite its efforts to provide authoritative information, Bosworth argued that in a democracy where people are free to speak their minds, people can choose to seek out whatever information they prefer.
“You have an issue with those people,” said Bosworth, according to Axios. “You don’t have an issue with Facebook. You can’t put that on me.”…
In the Axios interview, Bosworth suggested that despite the accumulated knowledge of scientists, it is not possible for Meta to have enough of a grasp on what is factually true to be able to restrict user speech. “Our ability to know what is misinformation is itself in question, and I think reasonably so,” he said.
The States
Insider NJ: Public Funding Program for Gubernatorial Campaigns Continues to Prove its Worth
By Jeffrey Brindle
This year’s gubernatorial election was a testament to the importance and durability of New Jersey’s Gubernatorial Public Financing Program.
As the general election unfolded, independent, so-called “Dark Money” groups, were spending upwards of $40 million in support or opposition of the two major party candidates, Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Republican challenger Jack Ciattarelli.
Not only were the Republican and Democratic Governor’s Association’s spending heavily in this contest but so were fourteen other groups hitting the election bag hard on behalf of their candidate.
These groups had every constitutional right to participate in the gubernatorial campaign. However, unless they specifically called for supporting or opposing one or the other candidate, they had no obligation under the law to disclose their contributors or their expenditures.
So, for all intents and purposes, a single group could ostensibly spend a billion dollars in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. And voters wouldn’t be the wiser.
While this was not the case in this election, the possibility is not far-fetched as wealthy individuals have been the sole financial backers of groups participating in elections elsewhere in the country.
