Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech September 24, 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 WSJ Podcasts ("All Things with Kim Strassel"): Untangling the Free-Speech Muddle .....Recent threats by Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute "hate speech" and by Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr to penalize ABC affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel's comments have thrust the nation into a muddled conversation over free speech. On this episode of All Things, Kim Strassel asks Institute for Free Speech Chairman Brad Smith to sort through the basics: What does the First Amendment actually cover? What are the limits to free speech? Should the federal government have any role moderating media comments, and where does the legal system stand on that question? And how corrosive is cancel culture to our broader free-speech tradition? Chronicle of Philanthropy: Facing Free Speech Threats, Foundations Prepare for Next Volley From the White House By Alex Daniels, Stephanie Beasley, and Ben Gose .....Unless followed by specific policy changes, the talk coming out of the White House may amount to just “bluster,” said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, a conservative group that advocates for protecting the First Amendment. Given that the Ford and Open Society foundations are well-staffed with lawyers, Keating, the former executive director of the Club for Growth, an anti-tax advocacy group, said he would be shocked if the grant makers did anything to put their tax-exempt status at risk under current policy.. Keating stressed that if an investigation finds progressive funders directly supported Kirk’s shooter, then possible criminal investigations should follow. But he suggested that Trump’s circle is simply targeting left-leaning organizations because Trump has been the focus of so many lawsuits supported by progressive foes. It’s a vicious cycle, Keating suggested, adding that he doesn’t “have any solution to get both sides to somehow come to a ceasefire.” New from the Institute for Free Speech New Hampshire School Board Eliminates “No Derogatory Comments” Policy in Victory for Free Speech .....After being silenced during a Kearsarge Regional School Board comment period, Beth Scaer has scored a victory for free speech rights at public meetings. With the help of the Institute for Free Speech and local counsel Roy S. McCandless, Scaer has secured a settlement that requires the Kearsarge Regional School Board to eliminate its “no derogatory comments” policy and commit to viewpoint-neutral treatment of all speakers. The board used that policy to silence Scaer, barring her from speaking after she referred to a biologically male athlete who competes on a girls’ soccer team as a “tall boy” and drew attention to the student’s physique during a 2024 comment period. Under the settlement terms, the school board formally agreed to eliminate any policy prohibiting citizens from making “derogatory” comments during public meetings. The board also committed to refrain from discriminating against speakers based on their viewpoint and to apply meeting rules in a viewpoint-neutral manner. The incident that prompted the lawsuit occurred during an August 2024 meeting specifically focused on transgender athletics policy. Scaer’s comments came during a heated debate over New Hampshire’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act (FWSA), a law reserving girls’ sports for biological females. At the time the board silenced her, Scaer was attempting to discuss biological differences in athletic competition. FEC Washington Post: Making a political donation doesn’t need to be this dangerous By Dara Lindenbaum .....Many Americans don’t realize that a small political contribution can result in their home address being posted online. In some cases, this reporting requirement poses real safety risks. I worry about that — especially because my agency, the Federal Election Commission, oversees the requirement that gives rise to these risks. I worry about someone using donor information to facilitate the kind of harassment of poll workers and election workers that we’ve seen in recent election cycles. I worry about a victim of domestic violence escaping an abusive relationship and relocating to a trusted family member’s home, only to be tracked down using her donor data — or a divorce attorney who assists that victim meeting the same fate. I worry about an aggrieved student with a history of violence using political contribution data to find the home of a teacher or professor who gave them a failing grade. I worry about a woman who withholds her address from a man she meets on a dating app suddenly being confronted when he uses the federal donor database to track her down. At the root of these easily imaginable scenarios — and countless others — is the Federal Election Campaign Act’s requirement that the FEC publish on its website the mailing address of any person who contributes $200 or more to any political committee. If a person uses an intermediary platform such as ActBlue or WinRed, a donation of even a single dollar will trigger the reporting requirement. Trump Administration Fox News: Trump calls ABC's Jimmy Kimmel support 'major illegal campaign contribution' to Democrats By Christina Shaw .....Trump said the comedian "puts the network in jeopardy by playing 99% positive Democrat GARBAGE." He also suggested that ABC’s support amounted to "a major illegal campaign contribution" to Democrats. "Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million," Trump said. "This one sounds even more lucrative. A true bunch of losers! Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad ratings." The Courts The Hill: West Point professor alleges free speech violation By Lexi Lonas Cochran .....Tim Bakken, the longest serving law professor at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, filed a lawsuit against his school on Monday for allegedly violating his free speech rights with a new policy instituted under President Trump. The lawsuit, filed in the federal court in New York, pushes back on a rule called the “Academic Engagement Policy” that says academics must get permission before attending events or publishing papers in their official capacity. The lawsuit lays out the numerous events, papers and appearances Bakken has made as a professor and the switch that occurred after Trump signed an executive order in January stating officials should “carefully review the leadership, curriculum, and instructors of the United States Service Academies and other defense academic institutions associated with their respective Departments.” Bakken’s suit says this has led to books being pulled from military academies and high scrutiny of course materials. Washington Examiner: Humphrey’s Executor case shouldn’t survive the Trump presidency By Hans von Spakovsky .....If the Supreme Court wants to correct one of the worst decisions of the progressive era, one that violated basic separation of powers principles and vitiated the constitutional authority of the president as head of the executive branch, it will finally overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. U.S. after 90 years of poisoning the government well. If you’ve never heard of the case, don’t be embarrassed. Most people, aside from government wonks and constitutional nerds, haven’t. However, it’s finally being brought to the fore because of President Donald Trump’s firing of government officials at so-called independent agencies, and it’s about time. The Supreme Court just issued a temporary stay of lower court orders in Trump v. Slaughter that told Trump he couldn’t fire Rebecca Slaughter, a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission. This followed other recent cases in which the justices stayed lower court decisions banning Trump from firing officials such as Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris from the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board, respectively. All of these government officials sued, claiming Trump lacked the authority to fire them. They relied on Humphrey’s Executor, which appears to be on life support. So, what was that case all about and why is it still important today? We have such a huge administrative state today because Congress started creating “independent” federal agencies to carry out the functions of the executive branch, including the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and the Federal Election Commission, where I once served as a commissioner. Archive.today link Free Expression New York Times: Now the Left Cares About Free Speech Again By Bret Stephens .....Because there’s a silver lining for most things in life, maybe there’s also one for ABC’s craven (if brief) suspension, under thuggish government pressure, of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night talk show. To wit: Now the left is once again all but unanimous in wanting to defend free speech. That hasn’t always been the case in recent years. It wasn’t the case when, a day before Kimmel’s suspension, Amy Klobuchar called on Congress to prevent violence like Charlie Kirk’s murder by cracking down on speech online. “I’m not for censorship, but I do think that more has to be done online,” said the Democratic senator from Minnesota. Sentences that begin “I’m not for censorship, but …” are usually calls for censorship. It wasn’t the case this spring when Democrats in the Colorado legislature sought to criminalize some speech that “misgendered” or “deadnamed” transgender children, including custody threats to parents who refused to use their child’s preferred pronouns. New York Times: Everyone’s a Free-Speech Hypocrite By Greg Lukianoff .....If you’re a free-speech lawyer, you face a choice: Either expect to be disappointed by people of all political stripes — or go crazy. I choose low expectations. Again and again, political actors preach the importance of free speech, only to reach for the censor’s muzzle when it helps their side. If, like me, you defend free speech as a principle rather than invoke it opportunistically, you get distressingly accustomed to seeing the same people take opposite positions on an issue, sometimes within the space of just a few months. Candidates and Campaigns Campaigns & Elections: Memo Calls on ActBlue to Ramp Up Enforcement of New Policies By Max Greenwood .....Just over a month after ActBlue rolled out a set of major policy changes intended to clamp down on misleading and erroneous fundraising practices, a pair of Democratic operatives are pressing the online fundraising platform to do more. In a memo sent to ActBlue leadership on Monday, Civic Shout CEO Josh Nelson and Donor Organizer Hub Executive Director Haley Bash applauded the account use policy changes at ActBlue, but argued that the effort’s effectiveness has been hindered by inconsistent enforcement, unclear terms, a lack of transparency and a “convoluted” reporting process for potential violations. Because of that, Nelson and Bash wrote, “donors remain at risk when repeat offenders continue operating unchecked, and when enforcement standards are applied inconsistently or remain unclear.” The States WPN: California Bill 771: $1M Fines for Social Media Amplifying Hateful Content By Miles Bennet .... In a move that has sparked intense debate among free speech advocates and tech industry leaders, California’s legislature has advanced Senate Bill 771, a measure aimed at holding social media platforms accountable for the algorithmic amplification of hateful content. Introduced by Senator Henry Stern, the bill seeks to impose hefty civil penalties on companies that fail to curb the spread of online harassment, particularly targeting marginalized groups. According to the bill’s text, available on the California Legislative Information website, platforms could face fines up to $1 million per intentional violation if their algorithms promote content deemed harmful. 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