May 14, 2025

We're Hiring!

Litigation Attorney – Institute for Free Speech – Virtual

.....IFS is hiring an Attorney with at least seven years of experience to support its ongoing litigation efforts. The position is located either in the Washington, DC office or remotely at any location within the United States with reasonable access to air travel.

This is a rare opportunity to litigate to protect and advance Constitutional rights. IFS challenges laws, practices, and policies that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and petition concerning politics. Cases typically secure people’s rights to speak at public meetings, such as school boards and legislative hearings, protect people’s ability to give and receive campaign contributions, and ward off any intrusion into people’s private political associations. You would work to hold censors accountable and secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws, regulations, and practices that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, or impose heavy burdens on political activity.

In the News

OpenSecrets: Everything you need to know about the state of the FEC

By Dave Levinthal

.....Brad Smith, a former Republican FEC chairman who served on the commission from 2000 to 2005, told OpenSecrets that Trump “would be wise” to quickly nominate someone in the mold of Dickerson, a conservative who won plaudits from his liberal counterparts for his legal rigor and collegiality. 

Smith added that finding quality commissioner candidates can also be tricky. Most FEC commissioners come from the legal world. And salaries for FEC commissioners — $158,500 per year — isn’t exactly great by lawyer standards, Smith noted, meaning most commissioners would need to take a significant pay cut to serve…

Smith, who now serves as chairman of the nonprofit Institute for Free Speech, said a lack of quorum puts older enforcement cases before the commission at risk of further delay — or worse, if they surpass a five-year statute of limitations. 

Also concerning, he said: Political committees and other political actors can’t ask for and receive official legal advice from the FEC in the form of “advisory opinions.”

The Courts

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Requiring Fifth-Graders to Read Pro-Gender-Ideology Books to Kindergarten Students (with No Opt Out) May Violate First Amendment

By Eugene Volokh

.....From Judge James Lorenz's order yesterday in S.E. v. Grey (S.D. Cal.):

Congress

Just the News: House Judiciary opens investigation into how foreign censorship could impact American free speech

By Misty Severi

.....House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan on Tuesday sent a letter to European Union (EU) Commissioner for Justice and Rule of Law Michael McGrath, notifying him of a probe on the extent that Poland has suppressed American free speech.

The letter accuses Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and his administration of taking actions to target and censor political opponents, and warns that a European censorship regime could also indirectly censor social media posts made in the United States. 

Jordan said the committee is investigating "how and to what extent foreign laws, regulations, and judicial orders compel or coerce companies to censor speech in the United States," and is seeking information on what the EU plans to do about Poland's regime. 

Reason: Republicans Want To Redefine Obscenity

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

.....Sen. Mike Lee (R–Utah) wants to redefine obscenity in a way that could render all sorts of legal sexual content illegal. His proposal would make the definition of obscenity so broad that it could ban even the most mild pornography, and possibly even more.

Lee and Rep. Mary Miller (R–Ill.), who introduced a companion bill in the House, have made no secret of the fact that the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act (IODA) is intended to get porn off the internet. "Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted," Lee said as he introduced the legislation.

But his proposed definition of obscenity is "so broad" that the TV show Game of Thrones could fall under its purview, suggests Ricci Joy Levy, president and CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation.

The bill makes a mockery of the First Amendment.

Washington Legal Foundation: The “Truth in Tariffs Act”: An Unconstitutional Legislative Show Horse

By Zac Morgan

.....[T]he Truth in Tariffs Act, would reportedly make it illegal to “sell to a consumer in the United States a good without displaying to such consumer, in a clear or conspicuous manner, the portion of the price of such good that is attributable to” any tariff “imposed on an emergency or other discretionary basis by the President” which “entered into force on or after January 20, 2025” unless the seller is “deemed to be one which is independently owned and operated and which is not dominant in its field of operation.” …

By its supporters’ own admission, then, the Truth in Tariffs Act is about compelling American retailers to engage in state-approved political speech to prop up the one party’s political fortunes. If this is legal—and it is not—it would also be constitutional for Congress to require this two-tiered system of prices: (1) the retail price and (2) what the retail price would be but-for an economic expansion unleashed by an earlier tax cut or other economic stimulus. Or, for that matter, Congress could mandate that every advertised-price in the country be accompanied by a fundraising pitch for the party in power.

Free Expression

Daily Signal: On the Consequences and ‘Cancel Culture’

By Ben Shapiro

.....The reality of social consequences for ugly behavior and argument is more complex: Sometimes people deserve blowback. Not all blowback is created equal. Criticism is not social ostracization is not firing is not violence. So, for example, you have no duty to hire or have over to dinner someone who shouts the N-word at children or who says that white people are colonizers and evil—but you also shouldn’t post that person’s address online so people can harass them.

The Federalist: Gabbard Reaffirms America’s Commitment To Protecting ‘Individual Liberty’ On The World Stage

By Shawn Fleetwood

.....Ensuring citizens’ “privacy is essential to individual liberty,” Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard said while speaking at an international conference on Tuesday.

“It’s why America’s founders enshrined this God-given right in the Constitution nearly 250 years ago. They understood that a government with unchecked power to control what we say, control what we do, and to search and surveil its citizens is not a government of the free,” Gabbard said.

The States

KJZZ: Bill would make Arizona teachers liable for civil damages if they're found to promote antisemitism

By Greg Hahne and Howard Fischer

.....The Arizona Legislature is a vote away from passing a bill that would make teachers personally liable for civil damages if they are found to promote antisemitism.

House Bill 2867 would be a first-of-its-kind law...

Individual teachers, public schools and higher education institutions would not be immune from any civil damages for violations.

The bill passed the state House by an almost two-thirds majority.

But the measure has drawn criticism from members of the Senate Education Committee and community education advocates. They say the bill’s definition for antisemitism could bring litigation against teachers for discussing historical events and the Israel-Hamas war.

Marisol Garcia, the president of the Arizona Education Association, spoke against the bill at a committee hearing earlier this year.

“I can imagine as a new teacher I would be afraid to bring up many issues in my classroom, historically based, on fact with fear that it may be taken out of context with a student and taken home that I could potentially be sued," Garcia said.

The measure awaits a final vote in the Senate.

Texas Tribune: After college students protested Israel-Hamas war, Texas Senate votes to restrict time, place and manner of future events

By Jessica Priest

.....The Texas Senate on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to a bill that would restrict protesting on college campuses in reaction to the pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year.

The bill’s author, Sen. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, said he wants to prevent disruption and unsafe behavior, but opponents have said it contradicts the Legislature’s previous commitment to campus free speech, championed by conservative lawmakers six years ago.

Senate Bill 2972 would give university systems’ governing boards the power to limit where protests can take place on campus and more tools to police them. Lawmakers voted 21-10 to advance the bill without debate.

Under the legislation, students and staff would not be allowed to use microphones or any other device to amplify sound while protesting during class hours. The bill largely prohibits them from protesting at all overnight and during the last two weeks of a semester.

They’d also be barred from erecting encampments, taking down an institution’s U.S. flag to put up another nation’s or organization’s and wearing masks, facial coverings or other disguises to avoid being identified while protesting or to intimidate others.

Finally, students and university employees at a protest would be required to present a valid ID when asked by law enforcement.