In the News
Law360: Calif.’s AB 5 Hinders Political Content, Nonprofit Tells Justices
By Grace Elletson
The Institute For Free Speech threw its weight behind a petition urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit panel’s decision affirming California’s A.B. 5 worker classification law, arguing in a brief that it discriminates against political content and canvassers.
The nonprofit filed its amicus brief with the high court Friday, arguing A.B. 5 infringes upon the First Amendment by discriminating against political speech. The law, which defines whether California workers are employees or independent contractors, unfairly dictates that distributors of political content have to be considered employees, while similar positions are offered less expensive independent contractor status, it said.
Fox 2 Now: Francis Howell School Board sued for allegedly censoring group
By Amelia Mugavero
The Francis Howell School Board is now at the center of a lawsuit after the board allegedly censored an organization from speaking at meetings.
Ken Gontarz is the president of Francis Howell Families, an online group he designed to keep school district leaders accountable…
Gontarz said his fight for free speech began last October. That’s when he says his group was silenced.
“I get a letter from the president of the Francis Howell School Board, saying that you are not able to reference Francis Howell Families, your PAC, or the website,” Gontarz said.
Gontarz said the board even cut off the mic of a group member after he mentioned the group.
“We as members of our PAC thought that was unfair and discriminatory,” Gontarz said.
Francis Howell Families took the matter to court and got representation from the Institute for Free Speech in Washington. A U.S. district judge recently issued a preliminary injunction stating Francis Howell Families, as well as anyone else, is allowed to reference their organization and websites.
“The case as I said was a classic First Amendment free-speech issue. We are not asking for money. We just wanna have an equal representation and to speak like everyone else,” Gontarz said.
Until the judge issues his final ruling later in the fall, the ruling stands for all future board meetings.
PACs
CBS: Toyota resumes political donations to 2020 presidential election objectors
By Kate Gibson
Toyota is again contributing to lawmakers who resisted certifying the official results of the 2020 presidential election, despite the Japanese automaker’s pledge last summer to halt such financial support…
After a six-month pause, Toyota “has resumed contributions to some members of Congress,” the company said Monday in an email to CBS MoneyWatch. “We will not support those who, by their words and actions, create an atmosphere that incites violence,” the company added.
The position did little to sway the Lincoln Project, which is dusting off a commercial it made decrying Toyota’s contributions before the company changed its policy last summer.
The group is re-releasing its ad accusing Toyota of “helping finance a movement that violently sought to take votes away from American customers, not to mention Toyota’s own employees.”
Online Speech Platforms
Politico: Twitter’s top lawyer reassures staff, cries during meeting about Musk takeover
By Emily Birnbaum and Betsy Woodruff Swan
Shortly after billionaire Elon Musk bought the powerful social media platform, top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde called a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams she oversees to discuss what the new ownership could mean for them.
Gadde cried during the meeting as she expressed concerns about how the company could change, according to three people familiar with the meeting…
Gadde, who has worked at Twitter since 2011, is the key executive charged with overseeing Twitter’s trust and safety, legal and public policy functions. She is seen internally as Twitter’s “moral authority” and the executive tasked with handling sensitive issues like harassment and dangerous speech…
She has shepherded Twitter through some of its most contentious political battles, including the decisions to remove all political advertising and to boot former President Donald Trump from the platform in the wake of the Jan. 6 attack on Capitol Hill…
But as news of Musk’s official takeover broke, policy and legal employees fretted at the meeting about what his leadership could mean for Twitter’s carefully crafted online speech rules, including its policies against hate speech, misinformation and even political advertising.
Wall Street Journal: How Elon Musk Can Liberate Twitter
By Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld
Elon Musk wants Twitter to “adhere to free speech principles.” That’s easier said than done. Porn, racial slurs and spam are all protected under the First Amendment, but few users want to see them. Even for the narrow categories of speech that aren’t protected, nearly all content blocking on social media goes against the first principle of free-speech jurisprudence—the ban on prior restraint, or censorship without judicial review…
A more ambitious option would be to harness artificial intelligence and develop an individualized filtering mode. Each user would decide for himself whether to remove certain posts, and an AI algorithm would learn from his choices, creating a personalized filter…
One objection to this approach is that it might exacerbate online echo chambers. But users who wish to see contrary viewpoints could instruct their filter to keep showing them challenging opinions and facts.
EFF: Twitter Has a New Owner. Here’s What He Should Do.
By Jillian C. York, Gennie Gebhart, Jason Kelley, and David Greene
Pseudonymity—the maintenance of an account on Twitter or any other platform by an identity other than the user’s legal name—is an important element of free expression. Based on some of his recent statements, we are concerned that Musk does not fully appreciate the human rights value of pseudonymous speech.
Pseudonymity and anonymity are essential to protecting users who may have opinions, identities, or interests that do not align with those in power. For example, policies that require real names on Facebook have been used to push out Native Americans; people using traditional Irish, Indonesian, and Scottish names; Catholic clergy; transgender people; drag queens; and sex workers. Political dissidents may be in grave danger if those in power are able to discover their true identities.
Furthermore, there’s little evidence that requiring people to post using their “real” names creates a more civil environment—and plenty of evidence that doing so can have disastrous consequences for some of the platform’s most vulnerable users.
Musk has recently been critical of anonymous users on the platform, and suggested that Twitter should “authenticate all real humans.” Separately, he’s talked about changing the verification process by which accounts get blue checkmarks next to their names to indicate they are “verified.” Botnets and trolls have long presented a problem for Twitter, but requiring users to submit identification to prove that they’re “real” goes against the company’s ethos.
Daily Caller: Watch MSNBC Host Realize Live On Air What Conservatives Have Known For Years
By Brianna Lyman
MSNBC’s Ari Melber expressed concern Monday that elections could be swayed through censorship while lamenting Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter…
“You could secretly ban one party’s candidate, or all of its candidates, all of its nominees, or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the elections.” …
Outkick founder Clay Travis mocked Melber’s segment.
“MSNBC ‘talent’ suddenly realizes the owners of Twitter can rig the entire site. This is amazing to watch. Does he not realize all of this was done to Republicans?”
The States
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): California Bill Aimed at Gun Advertising That Supposedly Targets Children
By Eugene Volokh
The bill, AB 2571, is discussed here; the discussion is of a proposed narrower version of the bill (the official, broader, draft is here). I just testified this morning against the bill; I was limited to two minutes, so the oral testimony had to hit just the main points (I expect to put together some more detailed written testimony later):
I think even the bill as proposed to be amended would be unconstitutional, for three reasons.
[1.] It would cover fully protected political speech, not just commercial advertising. A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a “firearm industry member,” because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns. That publisher or advocacy group would be forbidden from using cartoon characters even in its fully protected political advertising urging gun ownership.
Boston Globe: US Supreme Court lets R.I. election finance disclosure law stand
By Edward Fitzpatrick
The US Supreme Court declined to review a federal appellate court decision that affirmed the constitutionality of Rhode Island’s election finance disclosure law.
Rhode Island enacted the Independent Expenditures and Electioneering Communications Act in 2012 in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited amounts on elections.
Two conservative groups, the Gaspee Project and the Illinois Opportunity Project, challenged the constitutionality of the Rhode Island law. The groups claimed the act, which requires disclosures and disclaimers for independent expenditures or electioneering communications, violates the First Amendment and infringes on rights of privacy and association…
[John M. Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island] described the 2012 Rhode Island law as “groundbreaking,” saying it was modeled after the proposed “DISCLOSE Act” introduced by US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat. The DISCLOSE Act, which has not become law, would require outside political organizations that spend over $10,000 to report that spending to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: State senators chop away at Sunshine Law, donor disclosure
By Grace Zokovitch
Much contention during the debate Thursday focused on language in the underlying bill and an amendment limiting the disclosure of nonprofit donors’ names and information.
“Nationwide, there’s a push for laws that chill our freedom of speech by mandating the disclosure of names and addresses of individuals who have donated to not-for-profit groups,” said the bill sponsor Sen. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. “Sometimes access to these lists can cause individuals to be targeted for their beliefs. I feel like we all have the right to support causes that we believe in without being harassed.”
The Dispatch: DeSantis Beat Disney—Then the Mob Wanted More
By Jonah Goldberg
What, pray tell, had roused freedom from its slumber?
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which ruled that corporations have First Amendment rights. I thought then, like most conservatives, that the court was correct. Unlike many these days, I still do. The New York Times Co. has every right to argue for its preferred policies, and so does Koch Industries.
It’s difficult to exaggerate how committed the right once was to this principle and how much it appalled the left. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we conservatives contended, had every right not to be compelled to make “gay wedding cakes” because of the owner’s religious beliefs. Hobby Lobby had a First Amendment right to defy provisions of the Affordable Care Act that violated its religious freedom. We won both arguments at the Supreme Court.
That era is now officially over.
