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. The location for this position is either at our Washington, D.C. office or remotely anywhere in the United States.
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.
In the News
Richmond Observer: Save free speech by passing state anti-SLAPP law
By Wilson Times
North Carolina is among the 19 states without anti-SLAPP protection, but that could change if the General Assembly heeds a wise recommendation from the N.C. General Statutes Commission…
House Bill 1017 is North Carolina’s version of model legislation the nonprofit Uniform Law Commission drafted in 2020. It’s a hit with First Amendment advocates.
“When evaluated by our ratings of each state’s law, as described in the subsequent section, UPEPA contains provisions that are superior to almost every current state anti-SLAPP statute,” the Washington-based Institute for Free Speech says on its website, which assigns A-F letter grades to state and jurisdictional policy on SLAPP cases.
California’s anti-SLAPP law is the gold standard, earning an A-plus. Delaware and Nebraska have weak anti-SLAPP protections, resulting in a D-minus. With no relevant statutes on the subject, North Carolina and 18 other states receive an F.
Cowboy State Daily: After WyGO Court Loss, Secretary Of State Seeks Clarity On How To Enforce Elections
By Leo Wolfson
In its appeal of a court case it recently lost to Second Amendment advocacy group Wyoming Gun Owners (WyGO), the Wyoming Secretary of State’s Office is asking the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for direction on how it should enforce election rules.
The State fined WyGO in 2020 for failing to disclose donors as a group spending more than $500 on “electioneering communication.” In his March ruling in favor of WyGO, U.S. District Court Judge Scott Skavdahl said the election law itself was unconstitutional because of how vaguely it was written.
Ed. note: The Institute for Free Speech represents WyGO. Learn. more about the case here.
Free Expression
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): “The ACLU Never Stopped Defending Free Speech”
By Eugene Volokh
Prof. David Cole, the ACLU’s National Legal Director, has an article with this title in The Nation…
I appreciate Prof. Cole’s point, and the ACLU’s work in many of its free speech cases. I also e-mailed Ira Glasser and Wendy Kaminer, two prominent critics of what they see as the ACLU’s recent move away from its traditional position on free speech, and wanted to pass along their thoughts as well.
Glasser says he stands by the concerns that he had expressed before, for instance when he was interviewed by Bill Maher. The new Case Selection Guidelines (which he urges people to read), he argues, are a retreat from ACLU’s traditional viewpoint-neutral approach to protecting speakers. The ACLU’s view used to be that it was good for all speakers when the ACLU challenged speech restrictions even when they were applied to the KKK, the Nazis, and the like, because otherwise the same (or similar) restrictions or restriction-friendly legal doctrines would be used against others as well. But the ACLU has shifted to (quoting the Guidelines) stressing that “although the government may not discriminate based on viewpoint, the ACLU as a private organization has a First Amendment right to act according to its own principles, organizational needs, and priorities,” to concluding only that “the speaker’s viewpoint should not be the decisive factor in our decision to defend speech rights” (emphasis added), and to enumerating as a factor that:
Wall Street Journal: My Cancel-Culture Nightmare Is Over
By Ilya Shapiro
My long public nightmare is over. Tomorrow I assume my duties as a senior lecturer at Georgetown University Law Center and executive director of its Center for the Constitution. A four-month investigation by the human-resources department and the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action determined that I wasn’t yet an employee when I posted a tweet to which some at the school objected (which the Journal covered from the beginning) and so wasn’t subject to the relevant policies on antidiscrimination and professional conduct…
What I achieved was a technical victory but one that still shows the value in standing up for free speech in the face of cancellation.
Podcasts
Early Returns – Law and Politics with Jan Baran: Ty Cobb, Former Special Counsel to President Trump: Insights on the Response to the Russia Collusion Investigation, Past and Present
It has been six years since Donald Trump’s 2016 Presidential campaign was accused of colluding with Russia to win the White House. Those allegations have caused a tidal wave of legal battles—ranging from congressional inquiries, to a Special Counsel probe led by Robert Mueller, an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, and multiple prosecutions. In this episode of Early Returns, Jan discusses some of this fallout with Ty Cobb – the former White House Special Counsel who spearheaded President Trump’s response to the Mueller investigation. In particular, Ty sheds light on what it was like to represent the President on this matter. He explains how his team worked collaboratively with Mueller in an effort to achieve speedy exoneration, while also preserving executive privilege. Ty also provides thoughtful analysis on the latest chapter in the Trump-Russia storyline: the ongoing Durham investigation into the origins of the scandal, and the related prosecution of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman (who was accused of lying to the FBI about his role in raising Russian meddling concerns).
Independent Groups
OpenSecrets: ‘Guardian angel’ donors have poured more than $284 million into super PACs ahead of 2022 midterms
By Taylor Giorno
Guardian angel” donors have poured $284.6 million into 36 super PACs during the 2022 midterm cycle, according to a new analysis by OpenSecrets.
These angel donors contributed more than 40% of the total raised by a super PAC. In some cases, super PACs are virtually entirely financed by the angel donor.
The vast majority of super PACs do not raise most of their money from a single source. The 2,163 super PACs tracked by OpenSecrets have raised over $1.1 billion and spent $232 million so far during the 2022 midterm elections.
Angel donors poured $155 million into liberal super PACs and $118.8 million into conservative super PACs. An additional $5.8 million went to non-partisan super PACs.
