The Courts
Glenn Greenwald: Julian Assange Loses Appeal: British High Court Accepts U.S. Request to Extradite Him for Trial
In a London courtroom on Friday morning, Julian Assange suffered a devastating blow to his quest for freedom. A two-judge appellate panel of the United Kingdom’s High Court ruled that the U.S.’s request to extradite Assange to the U.S. to stand trial on espionage charges is legally valid.
As a result, that extradition request will now be sent to British Home Secretary Prita Patel, who technically must approve all extradition requests but, given the U.K. Government’s long-time subservience to the U.S. security state, is all but certain to rubber-stamp it.
Congress
Sen. Marco Rubio: Rubio, Warner, Banks, Spanberger Introduce Protecting Ballot Measures From Foreign Influence Act
U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Mark Warner (D-VA) and Representatives Jim Banks (R-IN) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) introduced the Protecting Ballot Measures from Foreign Influence Act, which would make it unlawful for a foreign national to contribute money, either directly or indirectly, to a State or local ballot initiative or ballot referendum. Notably, the bill ensures that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) could not assert authority over those State or local ballot initiatives or ballot referendums…
“The FEC’s decision to let foreign actors directly influence U.S. policy fights undermines our democracy,” Banks said. “That’s why I’ve joined Sens. Rubio and Warner and Rep. Spanberger to overturn it and ensure American’s voices are heard.”
Independent Groups
Daily Beast: Trump’s Dark-Money Machine Gets a Makeover—and New Owners
By Roger Sollenberger
The changing of the guard at the nonprofit, formerly known as America First Policies, illustrates how difficult it is to get a clear picture of the outside money fueling Trump’s movement. It reflects a turbulent year within the circle of Trump’s top advisers and fundraising chiefs, but also casts another layer of opacity over millions of dollars in already obscured donations the group made to controversial far-right causes in 2020, as Trump fought to cling to the White House.
Lloyd Mayer, an expert in nonprofit law at the University of Notre Dame, cast these anti-transparency developments as “troubling,” saying they strike at the heart of federal sunshine laws.
“Whatever your views of so-called ‘dark money’ may be, these groups are further obscuring money flows,” he said.
Free Speech
National Coalition Against Censorship: Remembering Phil Harvey: Free Speech Defender
The free speech community lost a great champion on December 2, 2021, with the passing of Phil Harvey. In addition to his leadership on NCAC’s board of directors, Phil spent a lifetime defending free speech at serious risk to his freedom and at great financial cost.
Reason: RIP Phil Harvey, Entrepreneur and Philanthropist Who Expanded Human Pleasure and Human Choice
By Brian Doherty
Harvey was a defender and supporter of free speech and expression in general, and produced movies dedicated to free speech and expression such as Can We Take a Joke? (2015) and Mighty Ira (2020), the latter about the American Civil Liberties Union’s free-speech paladin Ira Glasser. He openly regretted seeing some of America’s mainline sources of cultural power and indoctrination such as Harvard University and prominent public universities adopting speech codes.
Election Law Blog: “Lawyer Lies and Political Speech”
By Nicholas Stephanopoulos
Renee Knake Jefferson published this piece in the Yale Law Journal Forum. Abstract below.
Lawyer lies designed to sabotage valid election results are not protected political speech under the First Amendment. Ethics rules governing candor and frivolous litigation require sanctions, if not disbarment. Moreover, the duty of candor should be extended from the courthouse to the public square when lawyer lies threaten our democracy.
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): A State Attorney General Demands that a Professor be held “Accountable” for a Tweet
By Keith E. Whittington
The Academic Freedom Alliance sent a public letter to LSU explaining that [professor Robert] Mann’s social media posts are protected by the university’s own policies on academic freedom and by the First Amendment and that the university should publicly reaffirm that it will not sanction professors for criticizing state politicians. It is particularly disappointing that a state attorney general would demonstrate so little appreciation of the principles of free speech. As we note in the press release:
Attorney General Landry is perfectly free to express his own disagreements with Professor Mann’s tweet,” Whittington continued, “but the attorney general went well beyond voicing disagreement when he used his position as a public official to pressure a state university to take action against member of the faculty. That is a line that he should not have crossed, and the university has a responsibility to stand up to such pressure.”
The States
New York Times: In Texas, a Battle Over What Can Be Taught, and What Books Can Be Read
By Michael Powell
As for the state’s attempt to ban critical race theory, for all the Republicans’ talk, the Texas law makes no mention of the term…
Perhaps as a result, the statute’s language can be ambiguous to the point of vagueness. In its central thrust, the law sounds a seemingly unobjectionable note, ruling no particular subject — slavery, Reconstruction, the treatment of Native Americans — out of bounds and stating that teachers should “explore” contentious subjects “in a manner free from political bias.” …
Emerson Sykes, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, has helped challenge an Oklahoma law that is similar to Texas’. That federal suit argues that the law is so vague that it fails to provide reasonable legal guidance to teachers and could put jobs in danger.
He also spoke to another motivation. “For generations we had a whitewashed history,” Mr. Sykes said. “We view these as bans on inclusive history.”
The Texas law does state that teachers should not inculcate a sense of guilt or discomfort in students because of their race or sex…
The law singles out one text as forbidden: The New York Times’s 1619 Project.
CPR News: Major ‘dark money’ nonprofit ordered to reveal its donors in Colorado
By Andrew Kenney
The Colorado Secretary of State’s office on Wednesday ordered a nonprofit organization to reveal its donors and pay a $40,000 fine, saying it violated Colorado law by contributing millions of dollars to conservative causes in the 2020 election.
The group, Unite for Colorado, paid for signature gathering and digital advertisements related to several ballot initiatives last year, according to documents in a complaint that prompted the fine. As is common with “dark money” nonprofits, it did not disclose where its funding came from.
Critics of the group argued that Unite for Colorado crossed the line between nonprofits and political groups. A complaint filed in August 2020 argued that the group was spending so heavily — and was so closely involved in politics — that it should have registered as a political issue committee and reported more detail on its financial activities.
“We watched as Unite for Colorado was stood up almost overnight — no past experience,” said Scott Wasserman, president of the progressive Bell Policy Center, who pressed the complaint.
