In the News
ABC News: Former U.S. ambassador points finger in Qatar lobbying probe
By Alan Suderman and Jim Mustian, Associated Press
“FARA is an exceptionally broad and vague law that … sets snares for the unwary, even capturing some of the most sophisticated of Washington players,” David Keating of the Institute for Free Speech said in comments to the Justice Department earlier this year.
Free Expression
Wall Street Journal: Why I Quit Georgetown
By Ilya Shapiro
After a four-month investigation into a tweet, the Georgetown University Law Center reinstated me last Thursday. But after full consideration of the report I received later that afternoon from the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action, or IDEAA, and on consultation with counsel and trusted advisers, I concluded that remaining in my job was untenable.
Dean William Treanor cleared me on the technicality that I wasn’t an employee when I tweeted, but the IDEAA implicitly repealed Georgetown’s Speech and Expression Policy and set me up for discipline the next time I transgress progressive orthodoxy. Instead of participating in that slow-motion firing, I’m resigning.
Washington Post: Georgetown Law did the right thing on Ilya Shapiro
By David Cole
[O]n Thursday, Dean William Treanor announced that Shapiro would not be sanctioned for his speech, and will assume his job…
Georgetown’s decision also implicated a fundamental principle of university life: freedom of inquiry and speech. Because free inquiry is so central to the academic mission, Georgetown has adopted a strong free speech policy asserting that “it is not the proper role of a university to insulate individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
Punishing Shapiro for his tweets would have violated that policy. If scholars can be dismissed for expressing views that many find offensive, free inquiry will be captive to the sentiments of the majority. And while discrimination and harassment are not protected, the tweets expressing an opinion on the propriety of Biden’s pledge could not remotely qualify as either.
Politico: Free-speech group will spend millions to promote First Amendment cases
By Josh Gerstein
An advocacy group that has spent more than two decades fighting for free expression on college campuses is broadening its efforts to fight so-called cancel culture and other perceived threats to free speech across American society.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is renaming itself the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and keeping the “FIRE” acronym as it launches a drive to promote greater acceptance of a diversity of views in the workplace, pop culture and elsewhere. Part of the push may challenge the American Civil Liberties Union’s primacy as a defender of free speech.
Reason: You’re Wrong About Disinformation
By Katherine Mangu-Ward
Spend 10 minutes listening to any think tank panel or cable news segment about the scourge [of misinformation and disinformation], and it will quickly become clear that many people simply use the terms to mean “information, whether true or false, that I would rather people not possess or share.” This is not a good working definition, and certainly not one on which any kind of state action should be based.
People believe and say things that aren’t true all of the time, of course. When false beliefs influence the outcomes of major elections or, say, decision making during a pandemic, it’s reasonable to consider ways to minimize the ill effects those false beliefs can create. But efforts by public officials to combat them—and tremendous confusion over how to identify them—may well make things worse, not better.
New York Times: Depp Trial Exposes Risks to Media in Airing #MeToo Accusations
By Jeremy W. Peters
First Amendment experts said Mr. Depp was never in a strong legal position considering that public figures have to prove that the person they accuse of defamation acted with “actual malice,” or that the person essentially knew he or she was telling a lie. And yet he still won, sending up a warning flare to anyone willing to publish such accusations: The First Amendment may be on your side, but a jury may find otherwise.
Politico: What was really at stake in the Depp-Heard trial
By Katelyn Fossett
The jurisdiction here matters a lot because some states have very protective anti-SLAPP laws. Exactly for the concerns that defamation cases raise, there are several states that have actually created by statute these principles that will say you can fight a lawsuit preemptively if it seems like it’s designed to suppress discourse on an issue of public interest. It’s basically a First Amendment-protective idea.
California, which would have been the natural place for them to have brought the suit because they’re both residents there, has quite robust anti-SLAPP laws. And that’s why he didn’t want to fight it there, because he would have lost. So he makes the argument that he should be able to sue in Virginia, [which is where The Washington Post is printed and which also has a much broader version of defamation laws than other states]. It’s a very tenuous jurisdictional hook. And the fact that that was allowed I think was the first sign that this was not going to be a case that actually makes sense on the law. So that’s a big one; that was very smart and also very sinister.
By Brian Williams
The 2002 Supreme Court decision in Watchtower v. Village of Stratton affirmed that a local village ordinance in Stratton, Ohio, requiring a permit to knock on doors violated the rights of any person who wanted to engage in free speech with their neighbor, including Jehovah’s Witnesses who practice door-to-door evangelizing. The Court overturned two lower court rulings that upheld the ordinance, and thus paved the way for all citizens to maintain open dialogue with their neighbors on any number of issues including environmental, civic, political or educational.
“Looking back on the two decades since the decision, it’s clear to see the wide-ranging impact that Watchtower v. Stratton has had on free speech for all,” said Josh McDaniel, director of the Religious Freedom Clinic at the Harvard Law School. “This is just the latest of some 50 Supreme Court victories by Jehovah’s Witnesses that have helped establish and broaden First Amendment jurisprudence throughout the last century.”
Online Speech Platforms
New Yorker: How Harmful Is Social Media?
By Gideon Lewis-Kraus
It remains possible, however, that the true costs of social-media anxieties are harder to tabulate. Gentzkow told me that, for the period between 2016 and 2020, the direct effects of misinformation were difficult to discern. “But it might have had a much larger effect because we got so worried about it—a broader impact on trust,” he said. “Even if not that many people were exposed, the narrative that the world is full of fake news, and you can’t trust anything, and other people are being misled about it—well, that might have had a bigger impact than the content itself.” Nyhan had a similar reaction. “There are genuine questions that are really important, but there’s a kind of opportunity cost that is missed here. There’s so much focus on sweeping claims that aren’t actionable, or unfounded claims we can contradict with data, that are crowding out the harms we can demonstrate, and the things we can test, that could make social media better.” He added, “We’re years into this, and we’re still having an uninformed conversation about social media. It’s totally wild.”
The States
PBS: Digital currencies flow into political campaigns, but state regulations vary widely
By Associated Press
Some states, including Arkansas and North Carolina, also don’t allow for cryptocurrency donations in state races under existing campaign finance laws. Others have followed federal rules for congressional candidates and allow donations with disclosure requirements and contribution caps, typically set at $100. Still other states, including Hawaii, Idaho and South Dakota, have adopted no specific policies around digital currency donations…
Perianne Boring, founder and CEO of the Chamber of Digital Commerce, a trade association representing the blockchain industry, likened the use of cryptocurrency in politics to former presidents Barack Obama using smartphone technology and Donald Trump leveraging social media.
“Blockchain technology can increase participation in the political process in a very positive way,” Boring said, noting that is particularly true for younger people and members of minority groups who might be skeptical of traditional monetary methods.
Critics say the potential downside is lack of transparency — not knowing who is ultimately behind the donation.
Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Small-Town Political Libel
By Eugene Volokh
From Betzko v. Mick, decided March 28 by the Ohio Court of Appeals (Judge Robin Piper joined by Judge Robert Hendrickson):
