In the News
USA Today: Misnamed ‘Honest Ads Act’ would restrict free speech
By Bradley A. Smith
Americans are properly concerned about foreign meddling in elections, but we shouldn’t jettison our freedoms in a knee-jerk overreaction.
The misnamed “Honest Ads Act” places burdensome regulations – too many to recount here – on online advertising. But it does nothing to make ads “honest.” Russians spent $100,000 on Facebook ads in 2016. Americans spent many times that advocating political views. So the weight of the Honest Ads Act will fall on our free-speech rights, not on Russian shoulders.
The bill would force many cash-strapped, grassroots organizations to speak less, or not at all. Even at the height of the Cold War, Americans refused to sacrifice our First Amendment rights. Yet now some want to throw those rights away over a few measly, ham-fisted Russian Facebook ads.
While the Honest Ads Act restricts speech, it won’t prevent foreign meddling in our elections. Many of Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 election already broke existing U.S. campaign finance laws. The threat of fines from the Federal Election Commission isn’t going to deter foreign propagandists…
America’s response to foreign interference must respect constitutional rights. Trampling free speech in hopes of finding a few Russians will only further the division that foreign meddlers like Vladimir Putin aim to exploit.
[Ed. note: Read the USA Today Editorial Board’s view here.]
New from the Institute for Free Speech
DNC Donor Requirement Displays Folly of Tinkering with Fundraising Incentives
By Alex Baiocco
DNC Chairman Tom Perez said the donor threshold would give “small-dollar donors a bigger voice in the primary than ever before.”
However, several candidates have complained that the donor requirements are creating perverse incentives that may not be in the best interest of Democratic voters.
“When you have people competing for donations by creating viral moments that have nothing to do with governing our country or ideas that will move us forward, I think that’s challenging for our democracy,” said one candidate…
Betsy Hoover, a Democratic strategist and former Digital Organizing Director for the 2012 Obama campaign, told The New York Times that the mandatory focus on collecting small donations has led to a situation for candidates that she “wouldn’t say is ideal for democracy.”
“For second- or third-tier candidates, they have to choose: They can either spend their money achieving these metrics, or invest in programs on the ground in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina,” Hoover explained…
Of course, a political party is, and should be, free to make its own internal rules. However, efforts to force candidates to appeal to small-dollar donors often take the form of public policy. As one example, taxpayer-funded schemes meant to incentivize candidates to prioritize small-dollar donors have become popular among those who want to “get big money out of politics,” whatever that may mean…
From “democracy dollars” to “matching funds,” programs that grant the government a central role in the allocation of tax dollars to political campaigns have been plagued by a host of negative externalities. And many of these outcomes are in direct contradiction of the stated goals of such schemes.
The Courts
Bismarck Tribune: South Dakota switches course, says ‘riot boosting’ bill only applies to riot participators
By Sarah Mearhoff, Forum News Service
Wednesday marked the first day of hearings for the American Civil Liberties Union’s federal court case challenging the constitutionality of [Governor] Noem’s SB 189, as well as two existing South Dakota criminal statutes defining rioting…
The ACLU is arguing that the law violates the First and Fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. They argue that it infringes upon rights to free speech and assembly and is unconstitutionally vague, confusing activists about what speech is legal and what is not…
Deputy Attorney General Rich Williams went back and forth with [U.S. Judge Lawrence] Piersol on Wednesday, arguing that the law only applies to violence-inducing speech made by a riot participant…
In a March 4 news release announcing the bill package, Noem said, “This package creates a legal avenue, if necessary, to go after out-of-state money funding riots that go beyond expressing a viewpoint but instead aim to slow down the pipeline build.” …
Piersol appeared skeptical of Williams’s reading of the law on Wednesday, saying, “I don’t think I can decide it on that basis because I think that the state’s reading is not a correct reading of the statute.”
“Frankly, I don’t think I should completely ignore the fact that the whole billing of this, including press statements and everything else by leaders of the state government has been, ‘We’re going to get those outsiders,'” Piersol said. “And now they’re saying by a strange reading of this that it’s only going to be speech that is at the same time of the riot. If that is what this is intended for, that’s not the way I read the statute.”
ACLU lawyer Stephen Pevar argued that the confusion surrounding the law is a constitutional violation in of itself. The law is written so vaguely and is so open to individual interpretation by courts and law enforcement officers, he argued, that activists are afraid to speak and assemble for fear of violating the law.
Associated Press: Indicted congressman’s wife pleads guilty to corruption
By Julie Watson
The wife of U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter pleaded guilty Thursday to a single corruption count and agreed to testify against her husband at his trial on charges the couple spent more than $200,000 in campaign funds on trips, dinners, clothes and other personal expenses.
Margaret Hunter served as campaign chair for her husband, and after the couple was indicted last year the Republican congressman from California suggested his wife was to blame for any misuse of funds.
They both pleaded not guilty but she reversed course and withdrew her plea Thursday during a brief federal court hearing…
Prosecutors allege the couple engaged in more than 30 illegal transactions totaling more than $200,000 between 2010 and 2016…
Duncan Hunter said in a statement emailed to The Associated Press that political reasons prompted the U.S. Justice Department to pressure his wife to testify…
He said Thursday that the case should have been handled by the Federal Elections Commission and alleged U.S. prosecutors indicted him and his wife ahead of the November elections “to inflict as much political damage as possible in hopes of picking up a congressional seat.” …
They also are accused of trying to conceal the illegal spending in federal campaign finance reports. Duncan Hunter’s lawyers said in 2017 that the couple repaid the campaign about $60,000.
Congress
CBS News: House holds hearing on “deepfakes” and artificial intelligence amid national security concerns
In his opening remarks, Committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff said the spread of manipulated videos presents a “nightmarish” scenario for the 2020 presidential elections…
Schiff urged that “now is the time for social media companies to put in place policies to protect users from misinformation, not in 2021 after viral deepfakes have polluted the 2020 elections. By then, it will be too late.” …
Clint Watts of the Foreign Policy Research Institute said that politicians need to work to “rapidly refute smears” that are presented in any deepfake videos shared online. He noted that can be done in a “partnership” with social media companies…
“A lie can go halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on, and that’s true,” David Doermann, Professor, SUNY Empire Innovation and Director, Artificial Intelligence Institute at the University at Buffalo testified.
“Personally I don’t see any reason why, news does it with live types of delays, there’s no reason why things have to be instantaneous, social media should instill these kinds of things to delay,” he suggested…
Experts testified that presidential hopefuls and their respective campaigns need to work hand-in-hand with social emdia companies to create “unified standards” on misinformation.
“Pressuring industry to work together on extremism, disinformation…rapid responses to deal with this stuff. Any sort of lag in terms of a response allows that conspiracy to grow, the quicker you get out on it the better and mainstream outlets and other officials can help,” Watts maintained…
Experts all agreed that the use of deepfakes has serious implications on society, not just politics — namely journalism. Jack Clark, Policy Director at OpenAI called it an “undercover threat” to news media as manipulations look to convince the public that reporting is factually inaccurate.
Online Speech Platforms
USA Today: Social media is not a source of peril, Sen. Josh Hawley, it’s a powerful tool
By Neil Chilson
In a recent essay, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley warns about the pitfalls of social media, describing it as an “addictive digital drug” that is “a source of peril” for our society… He states that social media might be “best understood as a parasite on productive investment, on meaningful relationships, on a healthy society.” …
He forgets that, thanks to these platforms, we can – without paying a cent – reconnect with family members and old friends after being out of touch for years. We can find communities right in our backyard or around the world with whom we share interests. Parents of children with disabilities or rare diseases can connect and support each other. Those threatened by natural disasters can seek assistance and let loved ones know they are safe. On Figure8, parents can coordinate and communicate about car pools with community parents they trust. Through Patreon, fans can directly support artists and causes they love. On LinkedIn, people can build and maintain professional relationships and even search for or be offered new jobs.
And many of these platforms enable public servants like Sen. Hawley to communicate directly with their constituents. Indeed, Hawley has 2,700+ tweets and 53,000 followers on Twitter, accounts on every major social media platform, and his Senate campaign spent more than $30,000 on 60+ targeted Facebook ads. If Sen. Hawley thinks social media is so worthless and harmful, it’s curious that he remains so active on it…
History shows that most big innovations, no matter how beneficial, generate public concerns about safety and well-being. Indeed, as Adam Thierer notes in his powerful response to Sen. Hawley, radio and television were both accused of addicting users. Yet society adapts to such technologies quite quickly, maintaining the often-enormous benefits and addressing legitimate concerns, altogether forgetting those that are overblown.
Cato: The Fairness Doctrine Was Terrible for Broadcasting and It Would Be Terrible for the Internet
By Paul Matzko
This wave of techno-progressivism finds its latest expression in Slate journalist April Glaser’s article, “Bring Back the Golden Age of Broadcast Regulation.”
Glaser argues that the problems of internet discourse-eg hate speech, haphazard content moderation, and conspiracy peddling-are so trenchant that government intervention is warranted. She calls for applying the rules that once governed mid-twentieth century radio and television broadcasting to the internet, the most important of which was the mandate that broadcasting be done in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity” as laid out in the 1934 Communications Act. Inspired by that mandate, reform-minded progressives at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) enacted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949, which required broadcasters to provide multiple points of view when discussing political disagreements.
Glaser’s proposal is light on details about how exactly broadcast rules would be adapted for the internet, but it is heavy on assurances that any such regulations would be “light-touch.” Those who worry that inviting the feds to just “do something” could lead to violations of free speech need not be concerned. As Glaser argues, “For decades, radio and television followed regulations-hardly heavy-handed ones-meant to ensure they served the information needs of their audiences and did not actively harm political discourse.”
That would be lovely, if it were true, but not a single part of that statement is correct. The belief that government regulation of internet content providers will be effective and minimally-invasive is rooted in a poor understanding of the history of broadcast regulation. That history actually suggests the opposite, that these regulations will be ineffective, highly-intrusive, and will create significant unintended consequences.
Trump Administration
Politico: Federal agency recommends that Kellyanne Conway be removed from service
By Anita Kumar
The independent federal agency that oversees compliance with the Hatch Act has recommended that President Donald Trump’s top aide Kellyanne Conway be removed from her job after she repeatedly used her office for political purposes.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel sent a report to Trump on Thursday that said Conway violated the law numerous times by criticizing Democratic presidential candidates while speaking in her official capacity during television interviews and on social media. It is the first time the office, which is not affiliated with former special counsel Robert Mueller and the Russia investigation, has made such a recommendation for a White House official…
A White House spokesman criticized the Office of Special Counsel for being influenced by liberal organizations.
“The Office of Special Counsel’s unprecedented actions against Kellyanne Conway are deeply flawed and violate her constitutional rights to free speech and due process,” spokesman Steve Groves said. “Others, of all political views, have objected to the OSC’s unclear and unevenly applied rules which have a chilling effect on free speech for all federal employees. Its decisions seem to be influenced by media pressure and liberal organizations – and perhaps OSC should be mindful of its own mandate to act in a fair, impartial, non-political manner, and not misinterpret or weaponize the Hatch Act.” …
The latest Conway judgement stemmed from complaints made by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in October 2018 and May 2019.
By Lucien Bruggeman
Asked by ABC News Chief Anchor George Stephanopoulos in the Oval Office on Wednesday whether his campaign would accept such information from foreigners — such as China or Russia — or hand it over the FBI, Trump said, “I think maybe you do both.”
“I think you might want to listen, there isn’t anything wrong with listening,” Trump continued. “If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.” …
“It’s not an interference, they have information — I think I’d take it,” Trump said. “If I thought there was something wrong, I’d go maybe to the FBI — if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, ‘oh let’s call the FBI.’ The FBI doesn’t have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that’s the way it is. It’s called oppo research.” …
Stephanopoulos asked whether Trump Jr. should have taken the Russians’ offer for “dirt” on then-candidate Hillary Clinton to the FBI.
“Somebody comes up and says, ‘hey, I have information on your opponent,’ do you call the FBI?” Trump responded…
“The FBI director said that is what should happen,” Stephanopoulos replied, referring to comments FBI Director Christopher Wray made during congressional testimony last month, when he told lawmakers “the FBI would want to know about” any foreign election meddling…
“The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn’t happen like that in life,” Trump said. “Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you’d think differently.”
The States
Rapid City Journal: Dozens rally before hearing in lawsuit against “riot boosting” pipeline law
By Arielle Zionts
Carrying homemade signs in favor of free speech and against the Keystone XL pipeline, more than 80 people prayed, marched and chanted “our voices won’t be silenced” Wednesday in front of the federal courthouse in Rapid City.
The Protect the Protectors Rally spoke out against a new “riot boosting” state law aimed at pipeline protests before lawyers argued motions in a First Amendment lawsuit against the bill.
“Landowners, tribal people, families are against this pipeline and this law is a threat to our right” to protest, plaintiff Nick Tilsen – president of NDN Collective, a Rapid City-based indigenous advocacy group – said into a megaphone in front of the courthouse.
Tilsen referred to Senate Bill 189, which established a legal avenue and funding source for the state to pursue out-of-state sources that “riot boost” or fund violent protests. Those found guilty of breaking the law can be sent to prison for up to 25 years…
The laws are “vague” in defining riot-boosting, said Tilsen, a 37-year-old Porcupine resident and citizen of the Oglala Lakota Nation.
“We end up in a situation where the police and the legal system has such a huge leeway in deciding what is rioting boosting, deciding if you’re violent,” he said. Tilsen said he’s also afraid that the law could end up “holding a whole group of people accountable for something that one person does.”
