ICYMI
Coalition Letter Regarding Foreign Agents Registration Act Regulations
We the undersigned organizations write in response to the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) issued by the Justice Department to solicit feedback for potential amendments to the regulations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). We believe that FARA raises clear First Amendment concerns that should be central to the Justice Department’s considerations as it proceeds in the rulemaking process…
A wide range of expressive and associative activity protected by the First Amendment could, in theory, fall under the Act’s vague and sweeping provisions. For example, a U.S. nonprofit that arranges a public speaking event in the United States on human rights in Sudan at the request of a pro-democracy Sudanese advocate might be engaging in “political activities” as defined by FARA. FARA might similarly be interpreted to cover a journalist in the United States writing a story about U.S. COVID policy, at the request of their Canadian newspaper, that is accessible online by the U.S. public. Or a U.S. group responding to a request for information from an overseas partner about U.S. climate change policy might be considered a “political consultant” under FARA. Many entities and individuals that prefer not to register will be chilled from engaging in any expression that might trigger the Act’s criminal penalties even if that expression is protected by the First Amendment.
The Courts
New York Times: Judge Allows Civil Suits to Proceed Against Trump Over Jan. 6
By Alan Feuer and Luke Broadwater
A federal judge in Washington ruled on Friday that three civil lawsuits against Donald J. Trump related to the attack on the Capitol last January were able to move forward, saying that the former president was not shielded by the normal protections of immunity or the First Amendment…
At a nearly five-hour hearing last month, Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued he was immune from being sued because he had been acting in his official role as president when he addressed a huge crowd in Washington at the Ellipse before the Capitol was breached. The lawyers also claimed that Mr. Trump’s incendiary speech, one in which he urged the crowd to “fight like hell,” but also cautioned them to be peaceful and patriotic, should be protected by the First Amendment.
But in his 112-page order, Judge Mehta ruled that Mr. Trump’s actions that day had little to do with normal presidential duties like executing laws or commanding the armed forces and instead concerned something more personal: what the judge called Mr. Trump’s “efforts to remain in office for a second term.”
The Hill: ‘What-aboutism’ — Ruling against Trump leaves more questions than answers on free speech
By Jonathan Turley
[I]t is the free speech issue that is most concerning.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected such liability despite the use of inflammatory or even violent words.
In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that even a Ku Klux Klan leader calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” In Hess v. Indiana, the court rejected the prosecution of a protester declaring an intention to take over the streets because “at worst, (the words) amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” In a third case, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., the court overturned a judgment against the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People after one of its officials promised to break the necks of opponents.
Donor Exposure
Common Sense: A Social Credit System Arrives in Canada
By David Sacks
Already, a low-level government official in Ontario was fired after her $100 donation came to light. A gelato shop was forced to close when it received threats after its owner was revealed to have donated to the protest. On Wednesday, Justice Minister David Lametti went on Canadian television to say the quiet part aloud, namely that anyone contributing to “a pro-Trump movement” should be “worried” about their bank accounts and other financial assets being frozen.
When these protestors or those that supported them end up in financial hardship because they lose their job, business, or bank account, what will happen to those who try to help them? Will Canadian financial institutions be forced to play Six Degrees of Deplorables? The fear of being ensnared in the dragnet will surely have a chilling effect on the commercial prospects of those suspected of “unacceptable views,” creating a caste of untouchables whom no one will dare to transact with or help.
B.J. Dichter, one of the protest organizers who has had all of his bank accounts and credit cards frozen, expressed the sense of desperation: “It feels like being banished from the medieval village left to die.”
By Andrea Cavallier
A Canadian MP says the bank account of a single mom with a minimum wage job has been frozen after she donated $50 to Freedom Convoy.
Conservative lawmaker Mark Strahl says the mom, named only as Briane, has had her life ruined for donating the small sum to the anti-vaccine mandates protest.
Strahl shared Brianne’s story as concerns grow that scores of ordinary people will no longer be able to pay for food and basics after their accounts were frozen for donating to a group of protesters.
‘Briane is a single mom from Chilliwack working a minimum wage job. She gave $50 to the convoy when it was 100% legal. She hasn’t participated in any other way. Her bank account has now been frozen. This is who Justin Trudeau is actually targeting with his Emergencies Act orders.’ …
‘To those of you, especially the media, demanding more details on Briane, having seen what has been said about her online today and what has been done to other convoy donors in the last weeks I am not going to help you dox her,’ Strahl continued. ‘I know who she is and I won’t stop fighting for her.’
The States
Courthouse News: Public funds
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled a statute prohibiting officials from directly using public funds to support a ballot measure or candidate for public office does not violate the First Amendment because it does not regulate officials’ speech.
Read the opinion here.
