Events
Harvard Law School Election Law Clinic: [Democracy Speaker Series #5] Living with money in politics
Mar 21, 2022 12:45 PM Eastern
The Supreme Court continues to strike down regulation after regulation of money in politics, so much so that any attempts to prevent the influence of big money over election outcomes can at times seem hopeless. In this session we ask what can be done, even in the face of a hostile Supreme Court, to prevent money from corrupting our democracy?
Featuring Jane Mayer (New Yorker), Bradley Smith (Capital Law), Jake Grumbach (University of Washington).
Moderated by Professor Lawrence Lessig
The Media
Wall Street Journal: Hunter Biden’s Laptop Is Finally News Fit to Print
By The Editorial Board
Talk about burying the lead—for 17 months. The New York Times has finally acknowledged that Hunter Biden’s business dealings are legitimate news. Implicit apology accepted.
The Times waddled in this week with a story on the “tax affairs” of the President’s son, including this gem in the 24th paragraph: “Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.”
You don’t say. This admission comes six months after a Politico writer published a book that also confirmed that the laptop emails were authentic. But the original scoop belonged to the New York Post, which broke its laptop story in October 2020—only to meet a media wall of denial and distortion.
Free Expression
In my piece, “Coronavirus and the failure of the ‘Marketplace of Ideas,’” I address several shortcomings with the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor, namely that the concept doesn’t provide much space for the importance of artistic freedom (as art doesn’t neatly fit into “good,” “bad,” “true,” or “false” boxes), and does not explain how certain bad ideas — like the flat Earth theory — seem to have immortal staying power, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I instead proposed the “lab in the looking glass” metaphor — in short, that the primary value of free speech is that it gives you the chance to understand the world as it really is. The shift in emphasis may seem subtle, but it’s important. Too often, we focus on evaluating whether or not an individual’s factual assertions are true, yet miss a really important truth — the fact of the existence of that individual’s perspective. Simply, you cannot understand the world as it is if you don’t know what people think and why. Not only is this true on a civic and democratic level, but also on a historical, psychological, and scientific level. Free speech is essential because it is always important to know what people really think and why, especially if their views are potentially pernicious.
Washington Post: The complicated — but obvious — factors behind changing norms on speech
By Philip Bump
The situation delineated on the pages of the New York Times Opinion section sounds grim.
“A situation is developing throughout the United States in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for speakers freely to express their views, for teachers to lecture and for audiences to listen.” And, a bit later: “Violation of free speech and the right of assembly, from whatever source, undermines the democratic process by making democratic dialogue impossible.” …
Friday’s Times column on the same subject — titled “America has a free speech problem” — is the rhetorical equivalent of activating every fire station in the city because someone smelled smoke.
By Ian Hanchett
On Friday’s broadcast of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher reacted to pressure on Disney to oppose Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill by stating that “America needs more neutral things,” and “the more that things make us into two camps, the worse it is.”
Maher began his discussion by asking, “[W]e live in this world where corporations now have to take sides. My question is, is that a good thing that corporations always have to take sides on every political issue?”
Pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson responded, “In most cases, no.” She continued, “10 years ago, the folks that would have been the most upset about corporations using their voice and power to engage in political speech was the left. Now, it’s more often the left that’s calling for corporations to engage in political speech, to use their microphone to try to advance certain values.”
The Courts
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Schools May Have Violated First Amendment Rights by Retaliating Against Contractor Based on Political Speech
By Eugene Volokh
From Judge Sandra Ikuta’s opinion today (joined by Judges Mark Bennett and Ryan Nelson) in Riley’s American Heritage Farms v. Elsasser:
This case involves a school district that severed its longstanding business relationship with a company that provides field trip venues for public school children. The school district took this step after the principal shareholder of the field trip vendor made controversial tweets on his personal social media account, and some parents complained.
The States
Laramie Boomerang: Bill signed into law attempts to close dark money loopholes
By Jasmine Hall
Gov. Mark Gordon has signed into law a bill that attempts to close dark money loopholes through additional campaign finance reporting fees.
Washington Post: Alabama officials banned an anti-Biden license plate. After conservative backlash, they reversed their decision.
By Jonathan Edwards
Nathan Kirk thought his anti-Biden license plate was a fun, silly joke. That changed when he received a letter last month from Alabama’s motor vehicle officials.
The letter informed him that his recently issued plate was an affront to the “peace and dignity of the State of Alabama” and gave him 10 days to surrender it. Kirk’s offending plate read “LGBFJB,” a reference to “Let’s go, Brandon,” which has emerged in conservative circles as code for a profane expression against President Biden.
Banning the plate transformed the joke into something bigger for Kirk, a 44-year-old gun store owner in Oneonta, Ala. In his view, government officials were trying to stifle his right to free speech in a small, yet meaningful step toward tyranny — one he vowed to fight.
“I wasn’t going to just lay down,” Kirk told The Washington Post.
The Feb. 17 letter sparked a three-week battle between the state of Alabama and Kirk, whose story attracted the attention of right-wing media outlets and rallied some prominent conservatives to his cause.
