In the News
Albany Times Union: Lt. governor indictment puts spotlight on state campaign finance reform
By Rebekah F. Ward
Some proponents of statewide reform are lauding the role the city’s board appears to have had in spurring the federal indictment against Benjamin, which describes – among other criminal accusations – an attempt by the former state senator to defraud the city’s matching funds program…
Detractors of the impending changes in the state’s campaign system say the alleged fraud does not bode well for a program that will soon see more taxpayer money spent on elections in New York.
“We just had the lieutenant governor resign due to abuse of a program that’s in large part patterned after one that is about to begin,” said David Keating, an activist who grew up on Long Island and is pushing for campaign finance deregulation from Washington D.C…
David Primo, a social scientist at the University of Rochester, said his national survey research did not find evidence that states with either public campaign finance programs or contribution limits have a citizenry with more trust in government than those without them.
“I think the simplest way to think about it is that there’s so much more that people dislike about politics,” Primo said, adding that there are plenty of other “creative” ways Albany politicians have been corrupt that have nothing to do with campaign contributions.
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Viewpoint-Based Enforcement of “No Advertising Policy” as to Public Comments Likely Violates First Amendment
By Eugene Volokh
From Judge Stephen Clark (E.D. Mo.) in Brooks v. Francis Howell School Dist., decided Thursday; seems correct to me:
Through a political action committee, Plaintiffs frequently oppose the actions of their local, elected school board, particularly on issues of curriculum. While speaking during the public-comment portion of board meetings, Plaintiffs mention the PAC—Francis Howell Families—and point the board to the trove of detailed information on the PAC’s website, www.francishowellfamilies.org.
Invoking its no-advertising policy, the board has banned Plaintiffs from mentioning at board meetings “Francis Howell Families” or its website, telling them they “will be immediately stopped,” cutting the microphone while one Plaintiff spoke, and threatening to permanently ban them from speaking at meetings. Insofar as the board allows other organizations, which support the board, freer reign at meetings, Plaintiffs challenge the board’s actions as viewpoint discrimination….
Ed. note: Read more about our case here.
ICYMI
Wall Street Journal: 10 Things for Elon Musk to Do at Twitter
By Bradley A. Smith
If Mr. Musk is serious about making the social-media behemoth a force for free speech, here are 10 things he can do:
…
- Stop caving in to organized campaigns to remove particular speakers…
- Don’t respond to overt requests from government officials to take down content…
- Eliminate the “fact-checking” program.
- Conduct an outside audit of Twitter’s policy of removing “false or misleading information” about Covid…
- Review the “hateful conduct” policy to be sure that it isn’t squelching public discussion on contested issues, and change the policy where needed…
- End the ban on political ads…
- Stop supporting congressional legislation that would reduce speech, such as the misnamed “Honest Ads Act.” Make the company an advocate for free speech, not censorship.
Online Speech Platforms
New York Times: Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale
Elon Musk struck a deal on Monday to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, in a victory by the world’s richest man to take over the influential social network frequented by world leaders, celebrities and cultural trendsetters…
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. “Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.” …
Mr. Musk himself has had a rocky relationship with online speech. This year, he tried to quash a Twitter account that tracked the movements of his private jet, citing personal and safety reasons. On Monday, he tweeted that he hoped his worst critics would remain on Twitter because “that is what free speech means.”
National Review: How Elon Musk Can Improve Twitter
By Charles C. W. Cooke
Having set these narrow and concrete rules, Musk’s second step ought to be to fire pretty much everyone who has ever been involved in Twitter’s content moderation. Over the past few years, Twitter has provided Americans with a perfect example of the old adage that “personnel is policy,” and, clearly, Twitter’s existing personnel cannot be trusted. One could put together the greatest guidelines that have ever existed on the Internet, but if the people who are charged with interpreting and executing them are biased lunatics, they’ll make no difference whatsoever. Going forward, every employee at Twitter must be asked, bluntly, “Are you in favor of free speech, even when you hate that speech?” If the answer is “No,” they should be asked to leave.
Washington Post: Twitter workers face a reality they’ve long feared: Elon Musk as owner
By Elizabeth Dwoskin
On Twitter, in private messages and in interviews with The Washington Post, employees expressed fear about Musk’s $44 billion takeover. Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal, along with board chair Bret Taylor, held an internal town hall on Monday afternoon in which the leaders tried to assure anxious staff but offered few direct answers. A central concern was that Musk would attempt to break down safeguards to protect everyday users that staff had built over many years, according to the interviews and tweets, as well as audio from the town hall obtained by The Post.
Some tweeted tear-filled emoji and memes of people having emotional breakdowns, while others told The Post they were too in shock to speak. At Monday’s town hall, leaders were vague in response to questions about future layoffs, changes to the company’s approach to free speech and safety, and whether the company will continue to make money from advertising.
The Courts
Oregon Live: Appeals court reinstates Sen. Brian Boquist’s lawsuit against Democrats over access to Capitol
By Jamie Goldberg
A federal appeals court on Thursday ruled that Sen. Brian Boquist, I-Dallas, can move forward with his retaliation lawsuit against a Democratic leader and other legislative officials.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated Boquist’s lawsuit two years after it was thrown out, unanimously rejecting a ruling from a lower court judge that found statements Boquist made after he and other senators were faced with possible arrest for boycotting the Capitol amounted to threats not protected by the First Amendment.
“Even a statement that appears to threaten violence may not be a true threat if the context indicates that it only expressed political opposition or was emotionally charged rhetoric,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta.
The States
Fox News: Parent speaks after Sarasota School Board tosses her for what she was ‘about to say’
By Jessica Chasmar
A Sarasota County, Florida, parent who was kicked out of a school board meeting this week for what she was “about to say” said Thursday that the board’s liberal majority is “destroying our school district, targeting parents and eliminating dissent.”
Melissa Bakondy, a mother of four, was surrounded by police officers and ejected from a Sarasota County School Board meeting Tuesday after calling out a board member by name over comments she allegedly made during a previous meeting.
“At the last meeting, Shirley Brown was caught on the microphone –” Bakondy said during the meeting before being cut off.
“Stop talking about school board members,” board Chairwoman Jane Goodwin interrupted. “You cannot go and expound on school board members. I’ve warned you several times.”
When Bakondy asked why, Goodwin responded, “You were about to say something horrible about Shirley Brown. … You’ve said things about me that were untrue. Leave, please.”
FIRE (First Amendment News): Robert Corn-Revere, ‘Punishing Disney for opposing Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law poses serious First Amendment problems’
By Robert Corn-Revere
The question is not whether Disney has a “right” to some special tax status; it is whether government officials may use the power of the state to punish a corporation for speaking out on political issues.
The Supreme Court has long held that “even though a person has no ‘right’ to a valuable governmental benefit, and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interest, especially his interest in freedom of speech.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972). This principle has been applied in a wide variety of contexts, including the withholding of special tax status. In Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958), for example, the Court struck down a California law that required veterans to sign loyalty oaths in order to qualify for property tax exemptions. As Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority, “discriminatory denial of a tax exemption for engaging in speech is a limitation on free speech.” Id. at 518.
Dorf on Law: Don’t Say Mickey: Crony Capitalism and the First Amendment
By Michael C. Dorf
We can think of a government job–even a low-ranking one–as a “special” benefit in the sense that most people aren’t employed by the government. The relevant question for determining whether the loss of a benefit for political speech implicates the First Amendment strikes me as the one that the Court asks in the employee speech cases: does the government have an interest in controlling employees’ speech that goes beyond its interest in controlling the general public’s speech?
Where the speech relates to the official duties, the answer will generally be yes. And with respect to political appointees, the job is inherently political, so patronage of some sort is inevitable. But where the speech of an individual, local government, or corporation with some special governmental authority is on a matter wholly unrelated to the exercise of the governmental authority that individual, locality, or corporation possesses, the interest in retaliating in response is no different from the (nonexistent) interest in retaliating against ordinary citizens for speaking out on matters of public concern.
Accordingly, I find the garden-variety government employee speech cases more like the Disney case than Professor Volokh does. Nonetheless, I too hold my position tentatively because of the difficulty of proving illicit motive in most cases.
