Latest news with #InstituteForFreeSpeech
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
First Circuit rules Maine ban on foreign government election spending likely unconstitutional
A campaign sign on Portland's Eastern Promenade. Nov. 3, 2023. (Jim Neuger/Maine Morning Star) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled on Friday that a law passed by Maine voters in 2023 prohibiting foreign government spending in elections is likely unconstitutional. The ruling underscores that the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on corporate contributions continues to control the campaign finance landscape, those on both sides of the issue said. The decision, which affirmed a district court's temporary stay on the state from enforcing the law, is not the final word, as it will next return to the lower court. The law prevents foreign government-influenced entities, defined as companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership, from donating to state and local ballot measures. It also requires media outlets to establish policies to stop campaign ads from those prohibited entities. Voters overwhelmingly approved the law in 2023 with 86% voting in support. 'We really wanted to deal with the underlying root problem here of the inability of citizens to control their own elections,' said Maine Sen. Rick Bennett, chair of the ballot question committee and independent candidate for governor. 'Now with this ruling… it means that foreign-government controlled entities, even with 100% foreign government control, can still spend millions of dollars in Maine elections.' Meanwhile, Charles Miller, a senior attorney at the Institute for Free Speech who filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, argued the decision sends a message that states can't put vague parameters on free speech. Utilities, media groups sue state over foreign electioneering ban 'I think that we citizens have to all be on high alert for clever ways that politicians are going to use to try to limit our speech rights, and we have to fight against it, even when the target of those laws at the time are things that we don't want to hear,' Miller said. This law was one of two campaign finance changes Maine voters passed by referendum in recent years. In 2024, voters also overwhelmingly approved a law to place limits on donations to political action committees that independently spend money to try to support or defeat candidates — teeing up a path to get the Supreme Court to reevaluate its 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections. A decision on the lawsuit filed against the 2024 referendum is expected on Tuesday, before which the state agreed not to enforce that law. The plaintiffs believe Friday's ruling could have consequences for that case, too. The Office of the Maine Attorney General, which is defending the law on behalf of the state, does not comment on pending litigation, Director of Public Affairs Danna Hayes said. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Three different lawsuits arguing the ban on foreign government spending is unconstitutional were consolidated in the appeal. The utility companies Central Maine Power and Versant Power each filed a lawsuit. Two media groups, the Maine Association of Broadcasters and the Maine Press Association, jointly filed another. The majority opinion issued on Friday, written by Judge Lara Montecalvo, concluded that the law is too broad in its definition of foreign government because it silences U.S. corporations that have their own First Amendment rights. Central Maine Power is owned by the Spanish multinational company Iberdrola, while Versant's parent company is owned by the city of Calgary in Canada. The companies' filings outlined concern that the law prevents them from speaking on matters of concern to their company. As the decision notes, this referendum was passed amid attempts to prevent the construction of an energy transmission line to Canada, which CMP and Versant would benefit from. The companies spent millions to oppose that referendum as well as another in 2023 that would have replaced the utilities with a consumer-owned utility. While the court found that Maine has a 'compelling interest' to limit foreign government influence in its elections, it ruled that the state has no such interest in trying to limit the 'appearance of' foreign influence, such as with CMP and Versant. The appeals court specifically highlighted a challenge it sees with the law's practical implementation, given the prevalence of corporate ownership of publicly traded companies these days, which Miller sees as noteworthy. 'A corporation might not even know when it crosses that 5% threshold because of the way that stocks are traded routinely on a daily basis,' Miller said. 'They could enter into and out of that threshold without even knowing it.' The appeals court agreed, noting further that, 'as a consequence, U.S. corporations with First Amendment protections will likely choose not to speak at all rather than risk criminal penalties,' the court wrote. Bennett noted that the percentage that constitutes foreign influence will continue to be litigated, adding, 'If we have to consider adjusting the law because of the ultimate court decision, whenever that comes months from now, then I think the Legislature could consider that.' However, he also noted that there are other parts of the law that aren't being challenged, one being a requirement that Maine's congressional delegation put forth an 'anti-corruption' resolution in Congress that could undo Citizens United. The opinion, supported by all three of the judges on the First Circuit panel, also concluded that the 5% threshold looks like 'an end-run around Citizens United, aimed at silencing a large swath of corporations merely because they are corporations.' This is the crux of the issue at hand and broader attempts to place stricter regulations on spending in elections, those on both sides agree. 'Fundamentally, the problem goes back to this notion that the courts are stuck with this precedent saying that money is speech and corporations are people,' Bennett said. Citizens United overturned century-old campaign finance restrictions by allowing corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on elections. Fundamentally, the problem goes back to this notion that the courts are stuck with this precedent saying that money is speech and corporations are people. – Maine Sen. Rick Bennett 'Really the most critical point overarching all of this is the court's recognition that this case is controlled by Citizens United,' Miller said. Miller believes the circuit court's point on that decision in particular could also have consequences for the lawsuit against the 2024 referendum, in which Miller is representing the plaintiffs. Three months after Citizens United, in v. FEC, the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court upheld that contributions to PACs cannot be regulated, either, so long as the PAC is independent from the campaign it is supporting. That decision essentially created the 'super PAC,' which can receive unlimited contributions but can't contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court. Those behind Maine's 2024 referendum to place limits on donations to PACs, including legal scholar Larry Lessig, argue that the reasoning behind SpeechNow is incorrect. They say large contributions to PACs inevitably create a risk of quid pro quo corruption, given that donors and candidates have the opportunity to collaborate even if a PAC is independent. Supporters therefore expected, and planned, for the referendum's legality to be challenged, presenting an eventual path to the Supreme Court. Lessig previously told Maine Morning Star he specifically chose to introduce the referendum in the jurisdiction of the First Circuit Court because it hasn't ruled on whether Super PACs are constitutionally required — meaning there is no precedent. 'They came to Maine to do this because they thought the First Circuit was their best chance to get a court to sort of try to sidestep or ignore Citizens United, and this opinion indicates that they have no appetite to do so,' Miller said. Editor's Note: The Maine Press Association, which filed one of the lawsuits, represents about 50 newspapers and digital news outlets in the state, including Maine Morning Star. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Daily Mail
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Free speech fury after woke university censors professor for quoting a line every American learns in school
A free speech row has erupted in Oregon after a woke university blocked a professor online for quoting the Declaration of Independence. Dr Bruce Gilley, a political scientist and climate change researcher, was 'blocked' on X by the University of Oregon after he posted 'all men are created equal.' Dr Gilley — who is employed by Portland State University — was responding to a post by the college which encouraged people to 'interrupt racism.' In response, he filed a lawsuit claiming the University of Oregon had violated his First Amendment Rights. The university un-blocked him after 60 days, but federal judges allowed the case to proceed — saying the professor raised legitimate claims that the university had violated his free speech rights, given it is a state-funded, public institution. The two parties have now reached an out-of-court settlement, revealed this month, that sees the University of Oregon pay out more than $730,000 and update its social media policy. Under the agreement, the University of Oregon will pay $191,000 to Dr Gilley to cover his legal costs and another $533,000 to cover its own legal costs. Its social media policy will now also include guidelines for staff to avoid 'viewpoint-based censorship' and create and appeals process for those who believe they have been blocked by the university unfairly. Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Del Kolde, who worked on the case, heralded the fee award as a 'vindication' of fundamental constitutional rights. 'The university made a costly decision to prioritize DEI principles over constitutional principles,' he said. '[They] aggressively litigated this case for nearly three years rather than acknowledging the obvious — that blocking someone for quoting the Declaration of Independence violates the First Amendment.' As part of the deal, the University of Oregon has said it 'does not admit liability and believes it would have prevailed if the parties litigated to conclusion'. The dispute broke out in June 2022 after the University's Equity and Inclusion account — @UOEquity — posted a 'racism interrupter' tool designed to help people respond to remarks that they consider to be racist or offensive. It suggested that to 'interrupt racism' someone should say: 'It sounded like you just said____. Is that really what you meant?' Dr Gilley quote-tweeted their post, and added the response: 'My entry: ...you just said "all men are created equal".' He was shortly afterward blocked by the university staffer who ran the account, Tova Stabin — who identifies online as a 'Ashkenazi lesbian feminist'. In August, Dr Gilley filed a lawsuit against the university — seeking a temporary restraining order and $17.91 in nominal damages. Individuals generally cannot be sued for blocking people on X because this is seen as a private action, but public institutions can be. The university tried to have the case dismissed, but a federal judge rejected its claim in February 2023, saying the professor raised legitimate claims that the 60-day blocking violated his free speech rights. An appeals court allowed his preliminary injunction request in March 2024, saying the university had not shown that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to occur again. The case was later dismissed after the two parties agreed to reach a negotiated settlement. Stabin resigned from the university shortly before the lawsuit was filed, with internal records released in the case showing that other staff members urged her to unblock Dr Gilley as soon as they were aware of the situation. The University's general counsel immediately emailed her requesting that Dr Gilley be unblocked unless he engaged in speech 'not protected by the United States and Oregon Constitutions'. The University's communications department also sent an email to staff reinforcing that '"viewpoint discrimination" isn't permitted when managing social media accounts.' Its equity and inclusion account has 823 followers online, and last posted in August 2022 shortly after the lawsuit was filed. According to court documents, Dr Gilley is a critic of diversity, equity and inclusion principles because he 'believes that DEI calls for discrimination against university faculty, students, and applicants who are not members of groups favored'. At his university, he also 'resists attempts' to impose DEI on campus and previously declined to sign a 'Black Lives Matter' statement because it was an 'ideological principle'.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Woman sues Kearsarge board, saying rights violated during trans-athlete debate
Attorneys for a Nashua woman filed a lawsuit in federal court Thursday claiming her First Amendment rights were violated when she was 'silenced and threatened with police intervention' after referring to a transgender athlete on a girls soccer team as a 'tall boy' during a Kearsarge Regional School Board meeting last summer. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech, along with local counsel Roy S. McCandless, say Beth Scaer attended the Aug. 29, 2024, meeting to speak out against transgender athletes in girls high school sports, after members of the school board announced that it would revisit its decision to enforce HB 1205, a state law that limited participation in interscholastic girls sports to biological females. Free Speech Complaint The Kearsarge Regional School District is based in New London. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Concord, claims Kearsarge board members silenced Scaer 'just seconds' into her remarks, with board Chair Alison Mastin declaring Scaer's speaking time forfeited, and warning her that police would intervene if she continued speaking and threatening to have the police remove her for violating an unwritten policy against 'derogatory comments' for referring to a biologically male athlete on the girls' soccer team as a 'tall boy.' While Scaer was speaking, many attendees in the meeting room 'jeered, and hissed to express their opposition to her comments,' the lawsuit claims. 'Some audience members applauded Mastin for interrupting Beth and cutting her off early,' the lawsuit says. 'Scaer attempted to protest Mastin's silencing her, but — due to the jeers, hissing, and applause — it was difficult to hear Scaer. Mastin and the school board made no attempt to quiet the crowd so that Scaer's comments could be heard.' The lawsuit claims other speakers were given a full three minutes to express support for the transgender athlete by name, with one attendee displaying a sign with the athlete's name on it — which the board allowed. The lawsuit claims the board's actions are unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. The suit also argues that the unwritten 'no derogatory comments' rule is unreasonable, vague, overbroad, and selectively enforced against disfavored viewpoints. 'School boards cannot invent speech rules on the fly to silence citizens expressing views they dislike,' Institute for Free Speech attorney Nathan Ristuccia said. 'This unwritten rule about 'derogatory' comments gives the board unchecked power to determine which speech is acceptable and which isn't — precisely what the First Amendment prohibits.' Heated debate The Kearsarge meeting featured a heated debate over the state's Fairness in Women's Sports Act, a law reserving girls sports for biological females. The board had previously voted to follow the law, but after the incident with Scaer, the board reversed course, voting 5-1 to allow the transgender athlete to compete on the girls soccer team. 'Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to address their elected officials without fear of censorship,' said Scaer, who does not live in the Kearsarge district. 'This case is about ensuring that all citizens — regardless of their viewpoint — can participate in public meetings and comment on issues that are important to the community.' The lawsuit seeks to enjoin enforcement of the 'no derogatory comments' rule, prevent discrimination against speech based on viewpoint, and establish that Scaer's First Amendment rights were violated. Scaer's attorneys also say the lawsuit aims to ensure that Scaer, and others, can speak freely at future board meetings without fear of censorship, retaliation, or removal simply for expressing controversial or dissenting views. A request for comment from Kearsarge school officials was not immediately answered. In a separate lawsuit filed last year, Beth Scaer and her husband, Stephen, claimed their free speech rights were violated after they applied to fly two different flags, a pro-life flag and a Pine Tree flag, on flagpoles at City Hall Plaza in Nashua. A federal judge ruled Nashua officials didn't violate the couple's First Amendment rights when they rejected their application, denying their request for a preliminary injunction. The Scaers are appealing that decision. pfeely@
Forbes
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Another Victory For Free Speech: Montana Adopts Uniform Public Expression Protection Act
The Montana legislature has given its citizens a quality Anti-SLAPP law in the form of the Uniform ... More Public Expression Protection Act. The Treasure State of Montana has adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA"). The UPEPA passed the Montana House by a vote of 96-1 and in the Senate by a vote of 50-0. This follows the similar unanimous passage of the UPEPA in Ohio and Idaho and speaks volumes for the quality of the UPEPA as an out-of-the-box Anti-SLAPP law for states not having an Anti-SLAPP law or looking to replace a bad one. Peter Russo of the Institute for Free Speech put out a statement that: "This achievement represents years of advocacy and marks a dramatic improvement in Montana's free speech landscape. As you may recall from our previous report, Montana was among the worst states for SLAPP vulnerabilities. The 2015 case against the Billings Gazette - sued merely for filing a public records request about potential mishandling of public funds - demonstrated precisely why these protections were so urgently needed. "We extend our deepest gratitude to State Representatives Tom Millett (R-Marion) and James Reavis (D-Billings) for their bipartisan sponsorship, Governor Gianforte for signing it into law, and all our coalition partners - the ULC, press organizations, civil liberties groups, and grassroots activists - who worked tirelessly across party lines to make this possible. "With this legislation, Montana has transformed from having the weakest anti-SLAPP protections in the nation to joining the ranks of the strongest defenders of free speech in America." Montana's adoption of the UPEPA now makes 11 states which have adopted the UPEPA. This means that the UPEPA now constitutes just over one-third of all the Anti-SLAPP laws in the United States. Of the remainder, 28 states and territories (including the District of Columbia and Guam) have their own organic Anti-SLAPP laws, and 15 states and territories have no Anti-SLAPP laws at all. This legislative term, the UPEPA has been introduced in the legislatures of 10 other states and apparently is close to passage in a couple of those states. Fingers crossed. I have not seen the final bill signed into law in Montana, but I have been told that the UPEPA was passed with only minor amendments. We'll have to wait to see what those are. As I have previously mentioned, some minor variations by the states which have adopted the UPEPA are actually welcomed, as those states can then act as test tubes to see what works or doesn't. These experiences will be important at some distant time when a revised UPEPA will be considered. For those not familiar with the UPEPA, it is an Anti-SLAPP law that protects freedom of expression and other constitutional rights by essentially moving summary judgment from its normal habitat at the end of litigation to the start of the litigation so that meritless cases are disposed at the outset. While some other states have Anti-SLAPP laws that are as effective in doing this (and, in fact, the UPEPA was modeled after some of those laws, predominantly California and Texas), the UPEPA quite uniquely offers the additional benefit of uniformity of interpretation. This latter benefit allows the courts of the UPEPA states to rely on the each other's court decisions as needed. As 2025 has been a good year for UPEPA adoptions, we'll hope that the good fortune continues.
