Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech September 22, 2025 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. In the News NOTUS: Broadcasters’ ‘Chief Advocate’ Has Stayed Silent on Trump’s Threats Toward Networks By Taylor Giorno .....David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, told NOTUS that “Carr’s threats clearly violate the First Amendment and break his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution.’” “The government has no business regulating late-night comedians for jokes that don’t break the law,” Keating said. “Similar but hidden pressures were applied by the Biden Administration on social media companies to censor speakers. Government pressure to censor is a threat to free speech, regardless of who is in power.” Christianity Today: Pro-Life Pregnancy Center to Get Day in Court By Adam MacInnis .....More than a dozen organizations, including Christian Legal Society, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, the Institute for Free Speech, Americans United for Life, Save the Storks, and Heartbeat International, have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs defending First Choice. Supreme Court RealClearPolitics: SCOTUS Tasked To Defend Donor Privacy: New Weapon Against Free Speech By Rose Laoutaris and Nino Marchese .....Free speech is the cornerstone of American democracy, and donor privacy is essential to protecting that freedom. The freedom to associate with and contribute to the causes of your choice – and do so privately – is a liberty which has emphatically been protected by the Supreme Court under the First Amendment. Yet the government continues to find ways to pry into private giving, which chills speech and intimidates Americans. This October term, the Supreme Court will determine whether serving state-issued subpoenas that compel the disclosure of an organization’s donor list amounts to a constitutional violation. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), along with other voices across the ideological spectrum, say they do, and submitted amicus curiae briefs to the Supreme Court arguing so. In ALEC’s amicus brief, we shared our own experiences being the target of state investigatory actions, argued to defend First Amendment-protected liberties, and re-emphasized that federalism provides both state and federal forums to vindicate such constitutionally guaranteed rights. Trump Administration New York Times: In Assault on Free Speech, Trump Targets Speech He Hates By Peter Baker .....He has suggested that a clutch of protesters who yelled at him in a restaurant be prosecuted under laws targeting mobsters. He demanded that multiple late-night comics who mocked him be taken off air. He threatened to shutter television broadcasters that he deemed unfair to him. He sued The New York Times for allegedly damaging his reputation. And that was just last week. Time: Pentagon Accused of ‘Intimidation’ With New Restrictions For Journalists By Rebecca Schneid .....The Pentagon released new restrictions for journalists covering the Department of Defense this week, requiring them to sign a pledge not to gather or report on information that has not been authorized for release—even if it is unclassified. Those who do not obey the new rules, the Pentagon said, risk having their press credentials revoked. “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon — the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules — or go home,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote on X Friday evening. The Department of Defense said in a 17-page memo circulated on Friday that, in addition to the new reporting rules, the around 90 reporters credentialed to cover the Pentagon will now be restricted from several floors of the building unless they have a government escort, which heavily restricts the movement of journalists who, for the most part, were previously able to walk the halls… “It's 100% an intimidation tactic. It's 100% an attempt to kill transparency and funnel all public information through the government, which goes against every constitutional principle of free speech you can imagine,” Kevin Baron, the former vice president of the Pentagon Press Association who covered the Pentagon as a reporter for 15 years, told TIME. Congress New York Times: Democrats Pitch Bill to Protect Speech Targeted by Trump By Annie Karni .....A group of congressional Democrats said on Thursday that they would introduce legislation to bolster legal protections for people targeted by President Trump for speaking freely, moving to counter his administration’s threats to weaponize the government against his political opponents. Sponsors of the measure accused Mr. Trump and his lieutenants of exploiting the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the right-wing activist, to undertake a broad federal campaign to silence views and statements they dislike. The bill was set to be introduced in both the House and the Senate, although there was almost no chance that Republicans would bring such a measure to the floor. Still, it was an opportunity for Democrats to respond in some fashion at a moment they said was an inflection point for the country... A summary of the bill, entitled the No Political Enemies Act, or NOPE, outlined a series of legal protections for people targeted for political speech. It said the bill would create a specific legal defense for those targeted for political reasons and allow them to recover attorney fees if they were subjected to government harassment for expressing their views. And it would make it easier to sue federal officials for abusing their power to silence critics. Roll Call: Some Republicans turn to social media pressure after Charlie Kirk killing By Michael Macagnone .....But since the Sept. 10 shooting of Kirk, key Republicans have said social media platforms have a responsibility to suppress posts they say celebrated political violence, a stance experts say could violate the First Amendment’s free-speech rights. In the previous Congress, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James R. Comer, R-Ky., introduced a bill that would restrict the government’s ability to communicate with social media companies about protected speech. The House passed it. This week, Comer scheduled an oversight hearing with CEOs of forum website Reddit, streaming platform Twitch, chat company Discord and gaming platform Steam for next month to answer questions about “radicalization of online forum users, including incidents of open incitement to commit violent politically motivated acts.” “In the wake of this tragedy, and amid other acts of politically motivated violence, Congress has a duty to oversee the online platforms that radicals have used to advance political violence,” Comer said in a news release announcing the hearing. Wall Street Journal: Some Republicans Warn of Government Overreach on Free Speech By C. Ryan Barber .....“If the government gets in the business of saying, ‘We don’t like what you, the media, have said, we’re going to ban you from the airwaves if you don’t say what we like,’ that will end up bad for conservatives,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said on his Friday podcast, “Verdict with Ted Cruz.” … On Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, called Carr’s comments “absolutely inappropriate,” joining a growing chorus of prominent conservatives voicing discomfort with how Carr inserted himself into the matter. “Brendan Carr has got no business weighing in on this,” Paul said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Referring to Kimmel, he said people have a right to make “despicable comments,” but don’t have a right to stay employed after making them. Cruz likened Carr’s pressure on ABC to a mafia move. “That’s right out of Goodfellas,” he said Friday, referring to Carr’s comment that the FCC could intervene in response to Kimmel’s comments “the easy way or the hard way.” Free Expression Politico: Josh Shapiro: Political violence ‘leaves scars’ By Cheyanne M. Daniels .....Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he has “battled” with emotional scars since his family was targeted in an arson attack earlier this year. Speaking with NBC’s Kristen Welker on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” about the effects of political violence, Shapiro opened up about the impact the attempt on his life has had on him and his family... “The answer to debate and speech that you don’t like is not violence or taking someone’s life. It’s more speech. It’s more debate. It’s more engagement,” he said... But Shapiro said he doesn’t want to equate what happened to him and his family with what happened to Kirk or the Hortmans. The “scars” of political violence affect whole communities, he said, not just those targeted. Political violence, he added, “makes us all less safe. I think it puts us all at risk.” “It is something that is dangerous, it’s insidious and it’s designed, this political speech, to leave a scar on the individual, and to silence others,” Shapiro said. “And we’ve got to stand up against that.” Wall Street Journal: Now the Right Muzzles Free Speech By Ro Khanna .....The rise in political violence is real. The U.S. has seen nearly twice as many acts of political violence in the first six months of this year compared with the same period last year. Americans hunger for a way out of this abyss. It’s a Herculean task, beyond any single leader or party. It demands that people of both parties find a shared national purpose and tackle economic divides that are tearing us apart. A shared commitment to free expression is foundational. We must acknowledge our vastly different lives, faiths and worldviews while treating everyone with respect. Equal freedom to speak, from Charlie Kirk to his fiercest critics, is our defining political faith. It’s why the First Amendment comes first. Rallying around free speech at this fragile moment could rebuild our common political culture. Wall Street Journal: Back to Censor Culture By Kimberley A. Strassel .....The First Amendment restricts government action against free speech—not corporate firings. Businesses are free to terminate employees for words that cause reputational harm or customer backlash—and Mr. Kimmel’s words did both. Local affiliates might well have used this as an excuse to suspend “Jimmy Kimmel Live!,” weary as many are with being fed content that offends most viewers outside New York. Network TV, struggling, can no longer so easily finance left-wing self-satisfaction. We’ll never know, because Brendan Carr, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, pre-empted the program. International CNN: AI have a dream? A fringe party in Japan wants a chatbot penguin to be its leader By Chris Lau and Yumi Asada .....Upstart party Path to Rebirth unveiled plans earlier this week to install a chatbot penguin as its “AI leader,” after disappointing election results prompted its founder to give up the helm. Human candidate Koki Okumura won the ensuing leadership race, but the doctoral student – who specializes in AI research – announced at a press conference earlier this week that he has another plan. “The new leader will be AI,” the 25-year-old student at Kyoto University declared, while describing himself as its assistant. “The party will entrust decision-making to AI.” The new figurehead will take the shape of an avatar penguin, a nod to Japanese people’s love for animals, Okumura said. But it will not be throwing its hat into the ring for elections, as electoral law requires that candidates be a Japanese citizen. “Legally, the representative must be a natural person, so formally, a human serves as the representative,” he said. The States Michigan Advance: Michigan Democrats propose penalties for lying about elections By Hayley Harding, Votebeat .....Intentionally lying about elections could draw a fine under a new bill proposed by Michigan Senate Democrats. A bill reintroduced by Sen. Mary Cavanagh, a Democrat from Redford Township, would impose a $1,000 fine on anyone who knowingly lies about elections or a voter’s eligibility. Employers who had someone working for them “for election-related purposes” violate the provision — such as a lobbyist who suggests certain groups aren’t eligible to vote early — could face a fine of up to $10,000. The goal is to deter election-related misinformation in a critical swing state, Cavanagh said during a Senate Elections and Ethics Committee hearing Wednesday. Such efforts “can cause confusion, reduce voter turnout, and ultimately undermine the legitimacy of our electoral system,” she said… Cavanagh’s proposal would target only those who “maliciously” spread false information, she said. “We worked very closely with the ACLU as well as the Secretary of State’s office, the AG and municipal government to make sure we’re not infringing on anyone’s rights or someone just passing information to their neighbor,” Cavanagh said. Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice