Free Speech

Washington Examiner: Never let it be said that being anti-free speech is an explicitly left-wing college thing

By Becket Adams

Never let it be said that woke left-wing college kids have a corner on the anti-free speech market. Depending on what’s being said, some self-avowed Republicans say they too would support efforts to squash First Amendment rights.

At least, that’s one takeaway from a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, which found a distressing 46 percent of self-professed GOP respondents said the government should “have the power to revoke broadcast licenses of major news organizations it says are fabricating news stories about a President and his administration.”

Thankfully, the overall number of respondents who said the federal government should have this power is quite small. Only 28 percent of total survey respondents said they would support the federal government quashing the rights of the free press. Fifty-one percent said they would oppose it, and 21 percent of respondents said “don’t know” or “no opinion.” …

Free speech is a fundamental right, which is why it’s protected and enshrined in our founding documents. No news group ought to have its broadcasting license revoked because a government official doesn’t appreciate its programming.

USA Today: Florida Gov. Rick Scott is right to stand up to ‘vigilante censors’ and fight for free speech

By Nico Perrino

It’s a core principle of the First Amendment that government institutions, like the University of Florida, cannot ban speakers – no matter how reviled – simply because their opinions might, as the Supreme Court put it, be “unpopular with bottle throwers” or “offend a hostile mob.” Unless there is an imminent, tangible likelihood of violence, governments must do everything they can to ensure speakers can speak and listeners can listen…

It’s a regrettable sign of the times that defending speech can mean declaring a state of emergency and spending large sums of money. University of Florida officials expect to spend $500,000 on security for Thursday’s event. Similarly, in September, the University of California, Berkeley paid an estimated $600,000 for security to ensure conservative commentator Ben Shapiro’s speech on campus was not marred by violence.

But if we want to live in a nation where vigilante censors don’t get to decide what you and I can say or hear, it’s important that we bear these costs. Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated, and if we reward “bottle throwers” by doing the silencing for them, we will get more bottle throwers and more censorship.

CBS News: Roy Moore claims “it’s against the law” for players to kneel during national anthem

By Kathryn Watson

Moore could be referring to a section of U.S. Code stipulating that during the national anthem, members of the military should salute, and “all other persons present should face the flag and stand at attention with their right hand over the heart, and men not in uniform, if applicable, should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.”

That section does not outline a punishment for those who do not stand, however.

The key word in that section of code is “should,” according to Eugene Volokh, a law professor and First Amendment expert at the UCLA School of Law.

“It’s not clear to me that 36 U.S.C. 301 was ever meant to be legally binding – it says what people ‘should’ do rather than what they ‘shall’ or ‘must’ do,” Volokh told CBS News…

“But if it did aim at being legally binding, the First Amendment would prevent it from being enforced,” Volokh added. “The court held in West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette (1943), held that even public school students can’t be required to salute the flag; likewise, people can’t be required to stand at attention, put their hand over the heart, or remove their hats during the national anthem.”

Internet Speech Regulation

Politico: McCain signs on to Democrats’ Facebook ad disclosure bill

By Ashley Gold

The proposed legislation, the Honest Ads Act, is an offshoot of the investigations into Russia’s use of Facebook, Twitter and Google to influence the 2016 election. It would create federal disclosure requirements for political ads sold online – including who paid for them – so they are “covered by the same rules as ads sold on TV, radio, and satellite,” according to a news release.

“This is the first substantive bipartisan piece of legislation that’s trying to – with a very light touch, because we don’t want to slow down innovation, or restrict free speech or people’s access to the internet – to deal with the problem that we saw in 2016 in terms of foreign interference in our electoral process,” Warner told reporters.

McCain said he backed the bill “for the same reason I have been for transparency in campaign finance reform for the last 25 years.”

Axios: McCain’s latest surprise: Regulate Facebook

This is the first in a wave of legislative and regulatory proposals we can expect in response to the disclosures that Russian agents used tech platforms to meddle in the 2016 election.

The preview of the act:

“Amending the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002’s definition of electioneering communication to include paid Internet and digital advertisements. Currently only broadcast television, radio, cable and satellite communications are included.”

“Requiring digital platforms to maintain a public file of all electioneering communications it sells above specific thresholds.”

“The file would contain a digital copy of the advertisement, a description of the audience the advertisement targets, the number of views generated, the dates and times of publication, the rates charged, and the contract information of the purchaser.”

“Requiring online platforms to make reasonable efforts to ensure that foreign individuals and entities are not purchasing political advertisements in order to influence the American electorate.”

Wall Street Journal: McCain Joins Push for Disclosure About Political Ads on Social Media

By Byron Tau

In an interview Wednesday, Mr. McCain acknowledged disagreement within the Republican Party over greater regulation of money in politics but said he was having conversations with others in his caucus about the legislation.

A Facebook spokesman said: “We are open to working with lawmakers and reviewing any reasonable legislative proposals.”

The last major rewrite of campaign finance rules, the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill named for Mr. McCain and his partner on the bill, former Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold,  was written when social media was in its infancy and played almost no role in political campaigns…

Most of those ads uncovered by Facebook don’t refer to any particular political candidate and wouldn’t fall under the scope of the legislation proposed by Mr. Warner, Mr. McCain and Ms. Klobuchar-something that they acknowledge is a challenge… 

In a congressional hearing on Wednesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions signaled that the Trump administration might be open to new laws dealing with online political advertising.

“In this new fast-paced world with technology, perhaps there are needs to update it, and I would be pleased to work with you,” Mr. Sessions told Ms. Klobuchar.

New York Times: Senators Demand Online Ad Disclosures as Tech Lobby Mobilizes

By Kenneth P. Vogel and Cecilia Kang

Senator John McCain and two Democratic senators will move on Thursday to force Facebook, Google and other internet companies to disclose who is purchasing online political advertising, after revelations that Russian-linked operatives bought deceptive ads in the run-up to the 2016 election with no disclosure required.

But the tech industry, which has worked to thwart previous efforts to mandate such disclosure, is mobilizing an army of lobbyists and lawyers – including a senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign – to help shape proposed regulations. Long before the 2016 election, the adviser, Marc E. Elias, helped Facebook and Google request exemptions from the Federal Election Commission to existing disclosure rules, arguing that ads on the respective platforms were too small to fit disclaimers listing their sponsors.

Now Mr. Elias’s high-powered Democratic election law firm, Perkins Coie, is helping the companies navigate legal and regulatory issues arising from scrutiny of the Russian-linked ads, which critics say might have been flagged by the disclaimers. In a two-front war, tech companies are targeting an election commission rule-making process that was restarted last month and a legislative effort in the Senate.

Quartz: Congress finally has a bill to regulate Facebook. Here’s what it says.

By Heather Timmons

The Honest Ads Act would require social media and internet companies who have more than a set number of users (a figure in the tens of millions) to make public detailed information about any political advertiser who spent just a few thousand dollars on their platforms, according to two people briefed on the bill. It would require these companies to:

Make public digital copies of any advertisement these groups purchase, including the dates and times published.

Include a description of the audience and political ad target, and the number of times it was viewed.

Disclose contact information for the ads’ purchaser, and how much they paid for the ad.

Make “reasonable efforts” to ensure that any political ads or messaging isn’t purchased by a foreign national, directly or indirectly…

With the bill, the senators aren’t attempting to solve all problems related to propaganda on the internet, just the biggest one, said McGehee. The bill is “carefully crafted,” she said.

The Media

Washington Examiner: Drudge, Facebook, NYT readers could face libel suits for sharing ‘fake news’

By Paul Bedard

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation…

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ …

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

The States

Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Ethics amendment campaign submits signatures for 2018 ballot

By Associated Press

Supporters of a proposed government ethics constitutional amendment have turned in more than 50,000 signatures to put the measure on the 2018 ballot, the initiative campaign said Wednesday…

If passed, the new constitutional amendment would largely be protected from legislative changes.

The new amendment would create a seven-member state government accountability board with broad powers to serve as a citizen ethics commission. It would require lawmakers to put $389,000 annually indexed to inflation into a fund administered by the board.

The panel would investigate allegations of corruption and violations of lobbying, campaign finance and government ethics regulations. It would also have the authority to conduct audits of disclosures including for lobbying and campaign finance and impose sanctions such as fines on public officials…

The new amendment would also lower campaign donation limits. For example, it would decrease the contribution limit for a state representative from $1,000 a year from individuals to $500 per election cycle. It would ban donations from corporations and labor unions to candidates or political parties.

U.S. News & World Report: Idaho Lawmakers Reject Removing Campaign Contribution Limits

By Kimberlee Kruesi, Associated Press

An Idaho legislative panel reviewing possible campaign finance reforms rejected a proposal Wednesday to lift the state’s campaign contribution limits.

Instead, the 10-member bipartisan committee unanimously agreed that Idaho’s modest contribution limits to candidates and political action committees should remain in place.

“Beyond my belief that it corrupts politics to put too much money in it, I think it just sends the wrong message on transparency,” said Senate Minority Leader Michelle Stennett, D-Ketchum…

Yet legislative staffers warned lawmakers contribution limits across the country are being struck down in courts because judge have ruled they violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by restricting free speech rights. They added that removing the restrictions now could prevent Idaho from facing a future lawsuit.

For example, neighboring Montana currently has a case pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on the legality of its state contribution limits – which are stricter than Idaho’s limits.