We’re Hiring!
2022 Summer Associate Legal Fellowship
The 2022 Institute for Free Speech Summer Associate Legal Fellowship is a unique opportunity for current law school students to explore a career in public interest and First Amendment law. The program is open to students who will finish their first or second year of law school by the summer of 2022.
Fellows are expected to work full time for 10 weeks in our Washington, D.C. headquarters, but other arrangements may be available to especially outstanding candidates.
Fellows are eligible to earn $10,000 in salary for their 10 weeks of employment.
During the fellowship, students will work with Institute for Free Speech attorneys for a portion of their time. Each fellow will also be expected to complete a project. Applicants are encouraged to be creative in suggesting a project as part of their application.
Those with interest are strongly encouraged to apply as early as possible. Applications received after November 30, 2021 will not be eligible for a $10,000 paid fellowship. Applications received after November 23 will be at a strong disadvantage. Additional fellowships may be available after November 30, but compensation is not guaranteed.
[You can learn more about this role and apply for the position here.]
New from the Institute for Free Speech
Cancel Culture Is a Threat to Everyone
By Alec Greven
Our political debate has become supercharged with polarization and vitriol. A symptom of this dangerous discourse is the acceleration of what’s now known as “cancel culture,” where people are punished, sometimes viciously, for violating social norms and increasingly fear expressing themselves.
One of the best definitions of “cancel culture” is offered by New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, who explains that “cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.” Recent cancellations have shown the threat cancel culture poses to free expression and highlight the importance of shoring up a more tolerant society that can ward off the dangerous excesses of cancel culture.
ICYMI
Issue Analysis No. 12: Did Citizens United Harm Political Participation?
By Alec Greven
When the Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, many critics argued it would have a devastating impact on democracy. For example, in his dissent in that case, then-Justice John Paul Stevens opined that, “[i]n the real world, we have seen, corporate domination of the airwaves prior to an election may decrease the average listener’s exposure to relevant viewpoints, and it may diminish citizens’ willingness and capacity to participate in the democratic process.” This analysis investigates the claim echoed by Justice Stevens about the effect of the independent spending set free by Citizens United undermining political participation in the democratic process.
The Courts
Detroit Free Press: Michigan GOP asks federal judge to block unlimited campaign donations to Whitmer
By Paul Egan
Michigan Republicans went to federal court late Monday to try to block Gov. Gretchen Whitmer from ignoring traditional limits on the size of campaign donations…
Whitmer has cited recall attempts against her as the reason for blowing past normal campaign donor limits of $7,150 and taking six-figure contributions from several individual donors. Her campaign has pointed to a 1984 administrative ruling issued by former Michigan Secretary of State Richard Austin, who said that when a candidate is facing a recall, the donation limits do not apply because recall committees can accept unlimited donations from individuals.
Ron Weiser, chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson over the issue in federal court in Grand Rapids.
Weiser argued that by allowing the larger donations, Benson, who is responsible for state election laws, is violating the rights of all Republican donors, including him, who are barred from making similar donations to Whitmer’s GOP challengers…
Weiser’s suit alleges his First Amendment rights to free speech and his constitutional right to equal protection under the law are violated by the larger donations.
Congress
Wall Street Journal: The Enormity of Manchin’s Skinny H.R.1
By The Editorial Board
The Freedom to Vote Act also still includes the Honest Ads Act, which would require internet platforms to disclose anyone who spent $500 a year on ads “relating to any political matter of national importance.” It includes the Disclose Act as well, with rules for businesses and nonprofits if they “promote” or “attack” candidates. The message to conservatives is to think twice before speaking up about politics.
The new bill doesn’t totally mirror H.R.1. One dropped idea, and good riddance, would have switched the Federal Election Commission to an odd number of seats, guaranteeing an imbalance. Yet the Freedom to Vote Act is better than H.R.1 only in the sense that it’s better to get two anvils dropped on your noggin than four anvils followed by a Steinway piano.
Democrats started with a bad voting bill that was gigantic, and they’ve whittled it into a bad voting bill that’s merely enormous. It still deserves to die.
Free Speech
Tablet: Disinfo v. Democracy
By Nadine Strossen
“Disinformation” is widely used to designate false or misleading speech that cannot constitutionally be punished precisely because its potential harms are indirect and speculative—what the U.S. Supreme Court has called “an undifferentiated fear or apprehension” of negative consequences…
The negative impact of censoring disinformation comes from its inherent vagueness and subjectivity. The authorities tasked with censorship invariably enforce this malleable concept in ways that reinforce dominant political and societal interest groups, and disadvantage minority groups and perspectives…
We might well be willing to give up some free speech rights for the sake of advancing some other important goal—such as, in the case of disinformation, preserving our democratic form of government. But we shouldn’t be willing to forfeit free speech if the sacrifice does not actually have the desired impact, or worse yet, if it actually makes the problem worse—in this case, by undermining democracy. Indeed, government punishment of disinformation is fundamentally antithetical to democracy.
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): The Exploitation of Young Minds
By Bonnie Snyder
At the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), our longstanding concerns about the deteriorating free speech culture in higher education led to the suspicion that many of these pernicious problems originate before students ever set foot on campus. This spurred us to expand our organizational aims to include high school outreach, in order to teach younger students the value and importance of their — and their peers’ — precious First Amendment rights.
From coast to coast, we’re seeing documented cases of heavy-handed thought reform efforts in K-12 education that substantiate our long held concerns…
Paying attention to the K-12 landscape uncovers problematic patterns ranging from activist educators rebelling against traditional ethical restraints to a willingness to denigrate anyone — including children — who dares to verbalize doubt, disagreement, or even lack of sufficiently enthusiastic proactive agreement.
Internet Speech Regulation
Brookings Institution: Legislative efforts and policy frameworks within the Section 230 debate
By Chris Riley
What follows is a synthesis of the paradigms, trends, and ideas that animate Section 230 reform bills and proposals. Some have more potential for bipartisan support while others remain party-line ideas and function as ideological or messaging tools. This piece attempts to clarify the landscape of major Section 230 reform proposals. We separate the proposals based on their approach in reforming the legislation: either by broadening exemptions for immunity, clarifying one or more parts of the content governance process, or solely targeting illegal content.
Online Speech Platforms
Washington Post: Facebook’s independent Oversight Board demands transparency on exemptions for politicians
By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Cat Zakrzewski
Facebook’s independent Oversight Board forcefully reiterated demands for more transparency from the company on how it treats high-profile users and politicians who break the platform’s rules, according to a blog post Tuesday.
In the post, the body that Facebook created to oversee its content decisions commended Wall Street Journal reporters who recently revealed that high-profile users were getting exemptions from its rules…
The board is asking for further clarity on information previously shared by Facebook on the practices and said it expects to receive a briefing from the company in the coming days. The board is also looking at further recommendations for Facebook policies, it said…
The call-out of Facebook comes at a critical moment for the Oversight Board, as it develops its reputation and authority… The entity is largely an experiment in content moderation, and it’s unclear how much power the board will hold over one of the world’s most valuable and scandal-plagued companies.
The States
Reclaim the Net: Wisconsin introduces bill to curb social media censorship and deplatforming
By Dan Frieth
Accusing the Biden administration of using social media platforms to restrict speech and push a certain agenda, some state lawmakers in Wisconsin are circulating proposals that would ban social media censorship. This story comes shortly after Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed a social media censorship law, which is about to be challenged in court by Big Tech platforms.
State Rep. Shae Sortwell has teamed up with State Sen. Roger Roth to create proposals that would empower Wisconsinites to sue social media platforms for unfair censorship, protect news outlets publishing content on social media, and punish lawmakers who violate the principles of free speech.
We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.
Forbes: Police Stopped A Private Investigator From Working Because They Couldn’t Stomach His Criticism
By Andrew Wimer
Can the government go after your livelihood because it didn’t like the way you criticized officials on Facebook? In Maine, the answer is “yes.” For now, unless the Supreme Court acts, Joshua Gray will be denied the opportunity to work as a private investigator in Maine simply because he called into question the official explanation of a police shooting.
