In the News
Philadelphia Inquirer: Pennsbury school board now can’t stop public comments it deems offensive. What does it mean for other districts?
By Maddie Hanna
A federal court order against the Pennsbury School District for curtailing public comments that officials deemed abusive or irrelevant has districts across the region reconsidering how they’ll handle heated or hateful speech during school board meetings — a regular phenomenon in some communities over the last year.
The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Gene Pratter, came in response to a lawsuit filed Oct. 1 by four residentsin the Bucks County district who said their comments were censored, limited, or disrupted by the board, largely as they questioned its equity initiatives.
“The First Amendment protections for free speech apply to speaking at public school board meetings,” Pratter said in an opinion accompanying her Nov. 17 order, which granted a preliminary injunction against the district but hasn’t settled the case.
She agreed that Pennsbury’s policies prohibiting certain comments — including those considered “personally directed,” “offensive,” “abusive,” and “irrelevant” — appeared to be vague and overbroad, and directed the district to stop enforcing them.
Many area school boards have a similar policy in place, modeled after a template recommended by the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, and those boards “are going to have to suspend” it, said Jeffrey Sultanik, a solicitor for multiple Philadelphia-area districts…
[Resident Simon Campbell] and fellow plaintiffs were represented by the Institute for Free Speech, which called the order a “wakeup for school boards across America.” The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit is also representing members of the Moms for Liberty group in a similar case against Florida’s Brevard County School Board.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin Family Action sues to strike down campaign finance rule to shield names of its donors
By Patrick Marley
A conservative group from Wisconsin is seeking to strike down campaign finance regulations that it says limit its free speech rights.
Wisconsin Family Action on Thursday filed the lawsuit saying it was reluctant to spend money in two congressional races because it feared the Federal Election Commission would try to force it to disclose the names of its donors.
It is asking U.S. District Judge William Griesbach in Green Bay to declare some of the commission’s regulations unconstitutional. Such a ruling would allow the group to spend money without having to name its donors.
The lawsuit alleges the commission is trying to require groups like Wisconsin Family Action to disclose the names of donors who give more than $200 even if the money isn’t intended for political efforts.
Wisconsin Family Action has been planning to spend money in the races for Republican U.S. Reps. Glenn Grothman and Tom Tiffany but has held back because of how the commission is interpreting campaign finance laws.
“Like virtually all groups that advocate positions on controversial social issues, and their supporters, WFA and its supporters prize their First Amendment freedom of private association,” [Institute for Free Speech senior] attorney Donald A. Daugherty Jr. wrote.
“Their freedom to associate with each other in fulfilling their social, political and ideological goals would be significantly damaged if they could not maintain the privacy of their relationships, as WFA’s supporters would risk all manner of retribution from some who reject WFA’s mission.”
ICYMI
Lawsuit Aims to Restore Nonprofits’ Freedom to Speak About Candidates
A Wisconsin nonprofit filed a federal lawsuit yesterday that aims to stop a massive expansion of the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) donor disclosure mandates for nonprofit groups that advocate the election or defeat of candidates. Only those donors who specifically intend to fund campaign expenditures can be constitutionally required to be reported to the FEC, the complaint explains.
Wisconsin Family Action (WFA) brought the lawsuit to secure its right to speak independently to the public about federal candidates in future elections. It has refrained from doing so out of concern that public reporting of the group’s general donors would suppress contributions and expose its members to harassment, threats, and other acts of retaliation. The group is represented in the case by Don Daugherty of the Institute for Free Speech, a nonpartisan First Amendment advocacy group that defends political speech rights, and Michael D. Dean, LLC.
“The FEC can’t condition the exercise of one First Amendment freedom on the sacrifice of another. Nonprofits have a right to speak about candidates, and Americans have a right to support nonprofits without being reported to the government,” said Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Don Daugherty.
Congress
The Guardian: ‘Time is running out’: can Congress pass a voting rights bill after months of failure?
By Sam Levine
There was already simmering frustration from voting advocates who believe Biden has not taken strong action, especially as several states enacted sweeping new voting restrictions.
That frustration is now turning into escalating alarm that time is running out to pass meaningful voting rights legislation ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, amid a crammed congressional agenda that is already backed up for December. More than 200 civic action groups urged Congress on Thursday to postpone its December recess until it passes voting rights legislation.
“All of the experts and lawyers are telling us the same thing: time is running out. We are not out of time yet, but we are running out of runway to get this bill passed, get it signed into law, be able to clear any legal challenges and actually get it implemented for 2022,” said Tiffany Muller, the president and executive director of End Citizens United/Let America Vote, which strongly supports both bills.
Senate Democrats are searching for a path forward around the filibuster, but appear increasingly likely to finish Biden’s first year in office without passing a voting rights bill.
“If Congress doesn’t get this done by the end of the year, it’s hard to see why the political will will be there later. What will have changed in January in February?” said Ezra Levin, a co-executive director of Indivisible, a grassroots groups that supports the bills.
Online Speech Platforms
New York Post: New Twitter CEO raises free-speech worries
By Conor Skelding and Jon Levine
Some critics fear Twitter’s new CEO [Parag Agrawal] has a worse record on free speech than his predecessor —given his “terrifying” public statements on the issue, an “appalling” new rule implemented on his first day on the job, and a major executive restructuring Friday…
In a 2018 interview, Agrawal said Twitter should “focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”
“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard,” he went on. “And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content … how we direct people’s attention.”
Wikipedia co-founder and Internet theorist Larry Sanger slammed the comments.
“So this is how he feels about free speech. Of course. Another Silicon Valley jerk engaging in doublespeak, using what should be an open public square for manipulation and indoctrination,” he fumed in a tweet.
Naysayers didn’t get much solace on Agrawal’s first full day, when Twitter announced it would no longer allow posting images or videos of people without their consent…
Media theorist and CUNY Journalism School professor Jeff Jarvis said the move could negatively “affect how journalism is done on Twitter.”…
“If we go overboard in a moral panic,” he said, “it can have an impact on freedom of expression in general.”
“The woman who took the video of George Floyd, if she had not been able to post that video, that case would not have happened and that murderer would have gotten away with it. That concerns me,” Jarvis added.
By Mike Masnick
Twitter announced that its “private information policy” has now been expanded to include “media.” Specifically, Twitter says that it will remove photos and videos that are posted “without the permission of the person(s) depicted.”…
Buried deeper in the rules is a very subjective conditional:
“This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
But that’s going to lead to some very, very big judgment calls about (a) who is a “public figure” and (b) what is “in the public interest.” And early examples suggest that Twitter’s Trust & Safety team are failing this test.
The States
Boston Globe: Disarming the campaign war chests
By The Editorial Board
Allowing candidates to carry over campaign accounts is just one more way the playing field is tilted against challengers and nontraditional candidates in Massachusetts. In much of the state, incumbents are listed first on ballots. They get to be identified as “candidates for reelection,” putting their political resume on the ballot. A large number of incumbents… came into office in the first place in low-turnout special elections called on short notice that maximize the advantage of elected officials who already have campaign accounts with a balance (both of the main candidates in the state Senate special election in East Boston, for instance).
But at least when it comes to carried-over accounts, this structural advantage for incumbents could be changed. In Alaska, candidates can only carry forward a small portion of their campaign account from one election to the next, limited to $50,000 for gubernatorial candidates and less for lower offices; they have to spend the rest down by the Feb. 1 after the election. Although the law was challenged by the Alaska ACLU as a free speech infringement, it was upheld by the state’s highest court. The court there noted that when a candidate who is unopposed raises money and squirrels it away for a future election, they are effectively circumventing donation limits for that future election. In Washington state, candidates can keep leftover money, but only to run for the same office; they have to seek written permission from donors to use funds to seek a different office.
