We’re Hiring!
Senior Attorney – Institute for Free Speech – Washington, DC or Virtual Office
The Institute for Free Speech is hiring a Senior Attorney with a minimum of seven years of experience.
This is a rare opportunity to work with a growing team to litigate a long-term legal strategy directed toward the protection of Constitutional rights. We challenge laws, practices, and policies that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms, such as speech codes that censor parents at school board meetings, laws restricting people’s ability to give and receive campaign contributions, and any intrusion into people’s private political associations. You would work to hold censors accountable; and to secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws, regulations, and practices that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, and impose heavy burdens on political activity.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
New from the Institute for Free Speech
IFS Appeals Washington Donor Privacy Case to Ninth Circuit
By Luke Wachob
On Monday, a federal district court in Seattle dismissed the Institute for Free Speech’s lawsuit seeking assurance that we can provide pro bono legal representation to a political activist without being forced to publicly expose our supporters. Within hours, we appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We are disappointed in the court’s ruling and look forward to the appeal,” said Institute for Free Speech President David Keating. “Washingtonians have a right to accept free legal representation, and nonprofits have a right to provide that representation without exposing their confidential supporters. We are unable to help citizens in Washington until the law is fixed.”
The case, Institute for Free Speech v. Jarrett, seeks to protect the right of nonprofit organizations to offer pro bono legal services to individuals caught up in campaign finance enforcement proceedings in Washington state. IFS wishes to represent tax activist Tim Eyman on appeal in a case where a court ruled that he, personally, is an “ongoing political committee” under state law. Such a ruling raises serious First Amendment questions and could subject Eyman’s personal income and spending to campaign finance regulation.
Due to the state court’s determination that he is a walking, talking political committee, however, pro bono representation of Eyman could plausibly be regulated as an “in-kind contribution” under Washington’s vague campaign finance laws.
The Courts
Politico: Former New York Times editor takes stand at trial on Sarah Palin libel suit
By Josh Gerstein
The editor who inserted pointed language about “incitement” of violence into a New York Times editorial that drew a libel lawsuit from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin testified Tuesday that he had no intention to claim Palin had directly inspired a 2011 shooting that killed six people and left Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) badly wounded.
Former Times editorial page editor James Bennet told a Manhattan federal court jury at the trial on Palin’s suit that, despite her grievances, the impulse behind the June 2017 editorial that the former GOP vice presidential candidate claimed defamed her was actually to confront liberals about the dangers of extreme political rhetoric regardless of its source.
Online Speech Platforms
Axios: The Spanish-language misinformation crisis
By Ashley Gold and Russell Contreras
Spanish-language misinformation on social media platforms is flourishing, even as tech companies add more moderators, adopt stricter content rules, add context labels and block offending accounts…
An analysis of the 2020 election by the Latino research firm Equis, reviewed by Axios, found that YouTube played a significant role in convincing some Latino voters to support former President Donald Trump in higher percentages than expected by carefully targeting them.
Equis’ Carlos Odio said many of those targeted Spanish-language videos posted on YouTube purporting to be news analyses coming from Latin America were filled with misinformation.
In Congress, where many attempts to address misinformation online through legislation have stalled, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus is ready to look at what can be done for what it sees as a uniquely harmful issue to Latino communities, [Sen. Bob] Menendez said.
The States
Detroit Free Press: Michigan GOP want to ban social media companies from removing politicians’ accounts
By Dave Boucher
A handful of Michigan Republican lawmakers support creating new regulations that would ban large, private social media platforms from removing the accounts of political candidates that violate their terms of service…
It’s unclear that the proposal is enforceable and it may be unconstitutional: A federal judge in Florida blocked the implementation of a similar bill in that state, saying it likely violated free speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment among other issues…
They’re calling the bill the “justice-abolishing, corporate-kneecapping act,” or the JACK act, an apparent swipe at former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.
The Michigan bill would ban social media companies with more than 1,000 employees from “deplatforming” — defined as temporarily or permanently removing an account or profile — someone who is a politician or candidate. That person would need to qualify as a political candidate under Michigan election law.
Colorado Politics: Bill to limit contributions to school board candidates clears first committee
By Marianne Goodland
A bill that would cap individual contributions to school board candidates at $2,500 is awaiting action from its second House committee.
Rep. Emily Sirota, D-Denver, is the sponsor of House Bill 1060, which would also cap donations from small donor committees to $25,000 per election cycle…
Current law has no limits on how much someone can give a school board candidate, and that’s resulted in individual contributions as high as $40,000 in the last couple of election cycles.
Willamette Week: Several Measures Made the Oregon Ballot While Failing a Standard That Officials Now Impose
By Anthony Effinger
Secretary of State Shemia Fagan last week told Oregon campaign finance reformers she planned to reject the language they proposed for three ballot measures that would slash the amount of cash that donors can shower on candidates…
Fagan says she plans to reject the ballot measures because they didn’t include, word for word, the full text of Oregon laws they would change, as required by a 2004 court ruling, Kerr v. Bradbury. A final decision from Fagan is expected Feb. 9.
The founders of Honest Elections Oregon say Fagan is killing their effort to get big money out of state politics by citing Kerr, which doesn’t qualify as legal precedent because it was declared moot before the Oregon Supreme Court addressed its merits.
Honest Elections Oregon says plenty of ballot measures have qualified without reproducing every word of the Oregon statutes they would change. Examples it cites appear below.
Fagan spokesman Ben Morris says those initiatives were handled by prior secretaries of state.
