In the News
Reason: Exposing Donations to Political Causes Can Chill Free Speech
By Scott Blackburn
Tammy Giuliani, the owner of Stella Luna Gelato Café in Ottawa, has learned a valuable lesson about privacy.
Giuliani made a $250 donation to the Canadian trucker’s convoy, the movement that briefly paralyzed Canada’s capital and garnered international attention for its protest against COVID-19 mandates. Hackers leaked information about her donation and thousands of others, leading to widespread threats and harassment against the donors. The threats forced the café to close.
“When a group of people first decided they were going to travel across the country to spread this message of solidarity, it seemed like a beacon of hope for small businesses like us,” Guiliani told the Ottawa Citizen. “In retrospect it was bad judgment, but does that mean that people have a right to threaten our staff? Does it mean people have the right to threaten to throw bricks though our window and to threaten my family?”
Americans should take two lessons from these unfortunate events. First: The right to support causes privately and keep our associations to ourselves is important to a healthy and stable civil society. We cannot rid our communities of people and businesses that disagree with us. If people who object to Black Lives Matter or the Tea Party harass every small business that supports these causes, we would soon live in a world with very few small businesses—or very little free speech. Privacy of donations allows everyone to participate in political causes without sacrificing their ability to work and live in a diverse community.
Puck: The Bill That Could Blow Up Hollywood
By Eriq Gardner
The Institute for Free Speech is about to publish a report card for all 50 states on their anti-SLAPP laws, and I’ve gotten an advance look. For those unfamiliar, these statutes are designed to stop litigious people from using courts to bully someone else’s First Amendment rights. California gets an A+ from the think tank for the way the state allows judges to review a case’s merits quickly and shift legal fees to the winner. Nineteen states with no anti-SLAPP law get F’s. The states making strides to protect free speech by recently enacting new procedures to curb frivolous 1A-chilling suits, according to the Institute, are Tennessee (A), New York and Washington (both A-), and Colorado (B).
New from the Institute for Free Speech
New Study: Majority of States Lack Basic Free Speech Protections Against Frivolous Lawsuits
Most states do a poor job of protecting their citizens from frivolous lawsuits intended to stifle free speech, according to a new study released today by the Institute for Free Speech. The 50-state “report card” evaluates the strength of legal procedures to protect free speech in court for each state and the District of Columbia and assigns them letter grades – while also making recommendations for policymakers on how they can improve their laws…
Thirty-one states were given grades of Ds or Fs, an indication of how widespread the risk from frivolous lawsuits is to American citizens’ free speech. While the median grade was a D, 16 states plus Washington, D.C. earned “A” or “B” grades in the report. In all, 32 jurisdictions (31 states + D.C.) currently provide at least some protection against lawsuits that threaten free speech.
The potential victims of non-existent or weak anti-SLAPP laws are numerous and transcend political and ideological divides, which is why strong anti-SLAPP laws enjoy often unanimous bipartisan support when adopted. In recent years, beneficiaries of robust anti-SLAPP laws have included journalists, environmental activists, citizens speaking at government meetings, conservative Christians, Hollywood filmmakers, scientists, people leaving Yelp reviews, people who post on social media, podcasters, anti-abortion groups, labor unions, public officials, community advocates and more…
To read the report, click here. To view an interactive map with each state’s grade, learn how states can improve their scores, and more, click here.
Anti-SLAPP Statutes: A Report Card
By Dan Greenberg & David Keating
Anti-SLAPP statutes prevent abuse of the legal system by providing additional defenses to those who are sued for exercising their First Amendment rights. The term “SLAPP” is an acronym for strategic lawsuit against public participation.
This report summarizes and evaluates anti-SLAPP statutes in 32 jurisdictions – 31 states and the District of Columbia. (The other 19 states have no functioning anti-SLAPP statute.)
This report begins by explaining the functions of anti-SLAPP statutes. It sketches the structure of a well-designed anti-SLAPP statute; explains the importance and operation of the elements of a statute; includes a brief account of the structure and functions of the Uniform Law Commission’s model anti-SLAPP statute; provides a numerical rating and letter grade for each jurisdiction’s statute, based on evaluations of how well each statute protects First Amendment rights; and recommends a particular improvement to the statutes of states with poor grades. Because such ratings and grades necessarily involve some degree of judgment and subjectivity, this report explains in detail the rationale of those ratings and grades.
Additionally, the report includes an Appendix that provides a plain-English, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction account of the anti-SLAPP statute in each state and Washington D.C., including both statutory text and some relevant case law.
Hover over and click on any state for more information, or select a state:
The Courts
By John Rigolizzo
The superintendent of a school district in Michigan monitored the social media posts of parents who criticized the district’s COVID-19 policy, then reported those parents to their employers, and in at least one case, the police, according to a lawsuit filed by a parent in the district.
The Detroit News first reported Tuesday that Robert Shaner, the superintendent of Rochester Community Schools, made the calls to police because he was “concerned and scared” about the “aggressive” social media posts from parents, some of which suggested staging protests outside school board members’ homes, and an email he allegedly received from another parent that stated that the parent was going to “wreak havoc.” Shaner made the comments as part of a deposition made on February 3 in connection with the lawsuit.
Congress
Bloomberg Government: Democrats Weigh Reining in Online Ads, Bias as GOP Is Skeptical
By Maria Curi
Democrats are considering proposals to rein in online advertising, deter bias in algorithms, and create a federal office to oversee social media.
The proposals are among five bills a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will debate Tuesday as Democrats and Republicans shift their focus away from big technology companies’ liability shield.
Lawmakers’ attempts to hold companies such as Twitter Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. accountable for harmful online practices have largely centered on limiting or repealing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which offers platforms legal protection against content that users post.
Members are sharply divided over what to do with the statute, with Republicans alleging censorship of conservative views and Democrats saying companies aren’t doing enough to take down disinformation.
While a deadlock remains on that issue, lawmakers are weighing other options, including new regulatory tools, more limited parameters around legal advertising, and educating consumers.
Online Speech Platforms
Wall Street Journal: Facebook, Apple and Other Tech Giants Face Rising Pressure Over Ukraine
By Tripp Mickle and Meghan Bobrowsky
U.S. tech giants are under pressure from both Russia and the West to respond to the conflict in Ukraine, highlighting their power over global discourse but also escalating a recent trend in which their businesses are squeezed by geopolitical events.
The States
The Oregonian: Oregon labor, business interest groups file challenges to campaign contribution limit proposals
By Hillary Borrud
Oregon business and labor groups on Thursday filed challenges to three proposed ballot measures that would set campaign contribution limits in the state.
The challenges were anticipated by supporters but nonetheless increase the likelihood that Oregon voters will not get to weigh in on political donation limits, a policy for which voters have repeatedly shown broad support.
Boston Globe: Mayor Wu proposes limits to protesting at private residences
By Emma Platoff
Mayor Michelle Wu of Boston, whose quiet Roslindale neighborhood has become the site of vehement early-morning protests over her vaccine mandate, on Monday proposed an ordinance that would restrict picketing targeted at individual residences between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m…
According to the city, the ordinance would not affect marches or protests passing through residential areas, just demonstrations that are directed at individual residences or residents. It applies to any residence, not just the homes of elected officials…
Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said the legality of Wu’s proposed ordinance will depend “largely on how it is applied and enforced,” as well as whether protesters have “adequate alternative means for ensuring that their views are seen and heard by elected officials.”
