July 29, 2025

Ed. note: The Daily Media Update will return Friday, August 1.

In the News

USA Today:  What to know about First Amendment issues in Trump's lawsuit against Wall Street Journal

By Stephany Matat

.....Traditionally, whether anti-SLAPP state laws apply in federal court is a topic of controversy, but attorneys for the Journal could argue for Trump to pay its attorney fees using Florida's anti-SLAPP provision.

But the complaint against the Journal, in which Trump is requesting strikingly high damages of $10 billion, would fall under Florida's anti-SLAPP law, said David Keating, the president of the Institute for Free Speech.

Tallahassee Democrat: Florida free speech law could aid Wall Street Journal in Trump defamation suit

By Stephany Matat

.....But federal courts have taken different opinions about whether these [state anti-SLAPP] laws apply in federal court, and Florida’s law is particularly unusual in that it may award attorney fees to the losing party in federal courts, said David Keating, the president for the Institute for Free Speech.

“It’s meant to help people’s First Amendment right to speak,” he said…

Keating noted there haven’t been any definitive rulings in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would give a hint of what direction judges may interpret the law. But Shullman noted that appellate judges have OK'd attorney fees under the law.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Fifth Circuit Rules Institute for Free Speech Can Challenge Texas Ethics Commission Ban on Pro Bono Work

.....The Institute for Free Speech cleared a major legal hurdle yesterday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Institute has standing to challenge a Texas law prohibiting nonprofit corporations from providing pro bono legal services to Texas candidates and political committees.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rendered a unanimous decision in Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al., reversing a lower court dismissal and allowing the Institute’s First Amendment challenge to proceed.

The Fifth Circuit concluded that the Institute has suffered a concrete injury sufficient for pre-enforcement standing, finding that the organization has demonstrated a credible intent to provide pro bono legal representation that could subject it to criminal liability under Texas law as enforced by the TEC. The court also ruled that the Institute’s claims are ripe for adjudication and that sovereign immunity does not bar the lawsuit’s pursuit of injunctive relief against Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) officials in their official capacities.

The Institute originally filed the lawsuit in August 2023 after the TEC issued Advisory Opinion No. 580, which interpreted the state’s corporate contribution ban to prohibit nonprofit organizations from providing free legal services to candidates and political committees for constitutional challenges to campaign-finance laws.

The Courts

Knox News: News organizations sue Tennessee over police buffer law, citing First Amendment

By Evan Mealins and Angele Latham

.....More than 20 Tennessee news organizations in Tennessee have joined together in a lawsuit to try to block part of a new state law they assert restricts their ability to report on critical issues of public safety by allowing police officers to create 25-foot buffer zones around themselves.

Gannett Co., which owns Knox News and seven other news organizations throughout the state, is among the companies joining the suit, as are the parent companies of Knoxville TV stations WATE, WBIR and WVLT.

National Law Review: New York’s Public Campaign Finance Program Goes on Trial: The Dao Ying Prosecution

By Joseph T. Burns, Kellen Dwyer of Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC  

.....On June 13, 2025, federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of New York charged Dao Yin, a 2024 Democratic candidate for a New York State Assembly seat in Queens County, with wire fraud in connection with New York State’s newly implemented Public Campaign Finance Program (PCFP). Federal prosecutors allege that Yin and his campaign fabricated public campaign finance contribution cards, including forged signatures, to illegally claim over $160,000 in campaign matching funds.

The wire fraud charge is brought under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which criminalizes schemes to defraud via interstate wire communications and carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. Prosecutors argue that Yin’s electronic submission of fraudulent contribution cards to the New York State Public Campaign Finance Board constitutes wire fraud. The Yin prosecution, which was led by the Eastern District’s Public Integrity Section and the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, marks the first time anyone has been charged with defrauding New York State’s public campaign finance program. 

Free Expression

Persuasion: The Prevention of Speech

By Yascha Mounk

.....In June, I was honored to address the World Expression Forum in Lillehammer, Norway.

It was an important gathering, which featured many people who had taken genuine risks in speaking their mind under dangerous circumstances. But as I chatted with participants, and listened to speeches, I was also struck by how, well, hostile the people at this conference were to any robust notion of free speech.

Nearly all of them seemed to agree that “misinformation” was one of the greatest dangers to befall democracy; that this justified the state adopting very intrusive policies designed to “protect” the public sphere; and that those who objected to such policies in the name of free speech were confused libertarians at best and secret fans of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin at worst. At one point, I joked to another participant that it felt like I had somehow ended up at the World Censorship Forum. (He was not amused.)

So when it came time for my remarks, I felt some obligation to make a robust case for the importance of free speech—and encourage participants of the conference to look into the mirror. Given the speed with which European countries are pushing ahead with further restrictions on free speech, and the incredulity with which some readers in Europe responded to my article about the state of free expression on the continent back in April, I thought I’d share (an edited and abbreviated version of) these remarks with you today.

The Media

The Federalist: Russiagate Wouldn’t Have Been Possible Without A Complicit Propaganda Press

By Shawn Fleetwood

.....While a desire to protect their Democrat allies is certainly part of it, the bigger motivation behind the media’s attempts to cover up the latest Russiagate revelations has to do with the fact that they’ve acted as co-conspirators in the hoax from the very beginning. Put another way, they can’t honestly report on Russiagate because to do so would require acknowledging their role in helping foment the charade.

The States

Election Law Blog: “Montana Initiative to File Bold Blueprint to Challenge Citizens United; New Amendment Would Use Corporate Law to Ban Political Spending”

.....The Transparent Election Initiative, a Montana organization, today released the public draft of a historic constitutional amendment that takes direct aim at Citizens United—and the corporate and dark money it unleashed into Montana’s politics. The amendment will be officially filed with the Montana Secretary of State’s office on Friday, August 1. 

The 1,000-word amendment takes an innovative new approach by using Montana’s corporate chartering authority to no longer grant its corporations and similar entities the power to use money to influence candidate campaigns or ballot measures. By redefining the powers granted to corporations under Montana law, the measure aims to undo the practical effects of Citizens United within the state. 

“This is the first step in a process to place this amendment on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot,” said Jeff Mangan, former Commissioner of Political Practices and leader of the initiative effort. “Montana has a history of ensuring that citizens lead its elections, not corporations. With The Montana Plan, we continue that tradition.”

Center Square (North Carolina): Proposal on foreign funding for ballot measures coming back to life

By Alan Wooten

.....Banning foreign funding for ballot measure campaigns is included in a North Carolina proposal expected to be taken up Wednesday by the Judiciary 1 Committee of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

Election Law Changes, known also as House Bill 958 and authored by Republican Rep. Hugh Blackwell of Burke County, was introduced on April 10. It’s likely to head for a full floor vote if the committee recommends.

Reason Foundation: Deepfakes, AI, and existing laws

By Richard Sill

.....In addition, over 30 states have also proposed laws to try and regulate political deepfakes, which would restrict certain fabricated depictions of political candidates or office holders. These proposals have different goals than restrictions on sexual deepfake regulation; they are meant to prevent the creation and spread of images that may deceive voters, spread misinformation, and potentially influence elections.

Most of these state laws allow for political deepfakes so long as they include clear disclosures or watermarks identifying them as synthetic media. Deepfakes of candidates lacking these disclosures created or distributed before an election are outlawed. The watermark approach reflects a growing consensus that these disclosure requirements are a key tool in combating malicious political deepfakes.

While these proposals may have good intentions, restricting political deepfakes risks limiting political speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Many state laws are intended to combat political deepfakes that attempt to deceive voters. However, regulations may lead to the targeting of deepfakes meant to be parody or satire.

Reason: California Is Advancing a Bill To Punish Social Media Companies for Not Suppressing Speech

By Sophie Mandt

.....The California Legislature is advancing Senate Bill 771, which would have a chilling effect on free speech on social media. Under the bill, which sits in the state Assembly after being passed by the Senate in May, large social media companies will be subject to legal challenges and fines if their algorithms "relay content to users" that violates the state's civil rights protections, such as hate speech. Platforms that knowingly violate the law could face fines up to $1 million. The bill would also implement a separate "civil penalty" fine of up to $500,000 for reckless violations.  

The Legislature says the bill is needed because of a rise in documented hate crimes. It cites a report by the Human Rights Campaign that found "anti-LGBTQ+ disinformation and harmful rhetoric" increased by 400 percent following the passage of Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill in 2022, as well as a report by the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations that found that "hate crimes involving anti-immigrant slurs increased by 31 percent" in FY 2024, the highest number since tracking began in 2007.