Florida again argues books ban are 'government speech,' not prohibited by First Amendment; Tallahassee Democrat, November 19, 2024

 Douglas Soule, USA TODAY NETWORK via Tallahassee Democrat; Florida again argues books ban are 'government speech,' not prohibited by First Amendment

"In yet another case, Florida's government is arguing that book removals in public schools are "government speech," meaning they are unrestricted by the First Amendment.

It's a controversial legal argument, which free speech advocates have called "authoritarian," but one that the state has been particularly passionate about over the last year. Attorney General Ashley Moody's office even recently sent a representative to make it on behalf of a Texas community's public library...

The state's defense of the law and the book removal decisions by school districts goes beyond the government speech argument. It also argues that governments don't even have an obligation to "provide benefits" such as school libraries."

‘It’s the First Amendment, stupid’: Federal judge blasts DeSantis administration for threats against TV stations; CNN, October 18, 2024

Liam Reilly and Brian Stelter, , CNN; ‘It’s the First Amendment, stupid’: Federal judge blasts DeSantis administration for threats against TV stations

"“To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it’s the First Amendment, stupid.”

That’s what a federal judge wrote Thursday as he sided with local TV stations in an extraordinary dispute over a pro-abortion rights television ad.

Chief U.S. District Judge Mark E. Walker of the Northern District of Florida granted a temporary restraining order against Florida’s surgeon general after the state health department threatened to bring criminal charges against broadcasters airing the ad."

“We Are a Relatively Easy Punching Bag”; Slate, October 3, 2024

LAURA MILLER , Slate; “We Are a Relatively Easy Punching Bag”

"While it’s not unusual for other industries to dedicate staff to influencing or changing public policy, it’s virtually unheard of in the relatively sleepy world of book publishing. Rosalie Stewart, however, has just been hired as Penguin Random House’s senior public policy manager, a new position that will fight the recent explosion in book-banning campaigns at schools and public libraries. At present, for example, officials in Texas and Iowa have attempted to argue that the book collections held by schools and libraries constitute “government speech” and are therefore not protected by the First Amendment. This bid to redefine the nature of public libraries was rejected by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Iowa, but for Texas, the matter is being weighed by the notorious extremists on the “rogue” 5th Circuit. I spoke with Stewart recently about the battle before her. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity....

There have been two book-banning reports recently from the ALA and PEN America. The first said that book challenges are slowing down, and the second said that banning attempts have ramped up. Could you explain why there would be that difference?

My colleagues—my former colleagues, I should say—at ALA are very good at what they do, and they’re very smart. As a professional association, they just have a different focus in terms of what they’re counting. They’re focused on a very specific definition of a “book ban.” They only count book removals. But we know that this censorship is playing itself out in different ways. Not only are books being challenged, removed, and then put back on the shelf, but there is soft censorship. There’s a chilling effect in terms of the books that people are buying and teaching. I think that PEN America’s definition is a little more expansive and draws on a wider variety of sources. Censorship is not going down. Book banning is not fading away. That’s not what we’re hearing from people out there. That’s a major challenge: How do we fight back against this on such a diffuse battlefield? It’s happening at the state legislatures; it’s happening at the school boards; and it’s happening at the agency level."

Judge blocks California’s new AI law in case over Kamala Harris deepfake; TechCrunch, October 2, 2024

Maxwell Zeff, Tech Crunch ; Judge blocks California’s new AI law in case over Kamala Harris deepfake

"A federal judge blocked one of California’s new AI laws on Wednesday, less than two weeks after it was signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. Shortly after signing AB 2839, Newsom suggested it could be used to force Elon Musk to take down an AI deepfake of Vice President Kamala Harris he had reposted (sparking a petty online battle between the two). However, a California judge just ruled the state can’t force people to take down election deepfakes – not yet, at least.

AB 2839 targets the distributors of AI deepfakes on social media, specifically if their post resembles a political candidate and the poster knows it’s a fake that may confuse voters. The law is unique because it does not go after the platforms on which AI deepfakes appear, but rather those who spread them. AB 2839 empowers California judges to order the posters of AI deepfakes to take them down or potentially face monetary penalties.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the original poster of that AI deepfake – an X user named Christopher Kohls – filed a lawsuit to block California’s new law as unconstitutional just a day after it was signed. Kohls’ lawyer wrote in a complaint that the deepfake of Kamala Harris is satire that should be protected by the First Amendment.

On Wednesday, United States district judge John Mendez sided with Kohls. Mendez ordered a preliminary injunction to temporarily block California’s attorney general from enforcing the new law against Kohls or anyone else, with the exception of audio messages that fall under AB 2839.

Read for yourself what Judge Mendez said in his decision:..

It’s nevertheless a big win for Elon Musk’s camp of free speech posters on X. In the days following Newsom signing AB 2839 into law, Musk and his usual allies posted a series of AI deepfakes that tested California’s new law."

Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech; The New York Times, September 6, 2024

Cass R. Sunstein , The New York Times; Only the First Amendment Can Protect Students, Campuses and Speech

"To answer those questions, we should turn to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Those words provide the right foundation for forging a new consensus about the scope and importance of free speech in higher education.

As a rallying cry, that consensus should endorse the greatest sentence ever written by a Supreme Court justice. In 1943, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

It is true that private colleges and universities, unlike public ones, are not subject to the First Amendment, which applies only to public officials and institutions. If Harvard, Stanford, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Pomona or Colby wants to restrict speech, the First Amendment does not stand in their way.

Still, most institutions of higher learning, large or small, would do well to commit themselves to following the First Amendment of their own accord.

First Amendment doctrine, developed over the centuries, provides excellent guidance."

Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law; Iowa Public Radio, December 29, 2023

 Grant Gerlock, Iowa Public Radio ; Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law

"A federal judge has blocked the state of Iowa from enforcing major portions of an education law, SF 496, which has caused school districts to pull hundreds of books from library shelves.

The temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a ban on books with sexually explicit content, which the judge in the case said likely violates the First Amendment. It also blocks a section barring instruction relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school, which he called “void for vagueness.”

The decision follows a hearing last week that combined arguments from two separate challenges against the law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May. A lawsuit brought by LGBTQ students calls the law discriminatory while another from a group of educators and the publisher Penguin Random House claims it violates their freedom of speech.

Enforcement provisions in the law that apply to book removals were set to take effect January 1...

Judge Stephen Locher said in his ruling released late Friday afternoon that the court was unable to find another school library book restriction “even remotely similar to Senate File 496.” Where lawmakers should use a scalpel, he said, SF 496 is a “bulldozer” that has pulled books out of schools that are widely regarded as important works.

“The underlying message is that there is no redeeming value to any such book even if it is a work of history, self-help guide, award-winning novel, or other piece of serious literature,” Locher wrote. “In effect, the Legislature has imposed a puritanical ‘pall of orthodoxy’ over school libraries.”"

What we’re watching at the start of new Supreme Court term; The Washington Post, October 2, 2023

Tobi Raji

, 

Theodoric Meyer

 and 

Leigh Ann Caldwell

, The Washington Post; What we’re watching at the start of new Supreme Court term

"2. Lindke v. Freed, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier (Oct. 31)

There are several cases on the court’s docket this term that will tackle the future of online speech. The first two — Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier — will seek to answer whether the First Amendment prohibits public officials from blocking constituents.

• (“Two years ago, the justices dismissed a similar challenge to Trump’s efforts to block critics on Twitter, after he lost reelection and his Twitter account was suspended,” Robertwrites.)

The high court will also debate the constitutionality of laws passed in Texas and Florida that regulate the tech industry’s content-moderation policies. They are Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. Conservatives argue that social media platforms are censoring their viewpoints, while the companies argue that the new laws violate their First Amendment right to choose what to publish on their platforms."

Report on Anti-Gay Slur Could Put Local News Site Out of Business; The New York Times , August 15, 2023

Jeremy W. Peters  , The New York Times; Report on Anti-Gay Slur Could Put Local News Site Out of Business

"Some First Amendment advocates said the playbook was relatively easy to replicate: A public official unhappy with the coverage sues, creating crushing costs for an outlet."

Florida school district sued for violating first amendment rights with book bans; The Guardian, May 17, 2023

Erum Salam, The Guardian; Florida school district sued for violating first amendment rights with book bans

"In a statement, PEN America’s CEO, Suzanne Nossel, said: “Children in a democracy must not be taught that books are dangerous. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the constitution. In Escambia county, state censors are spiriting books off shelves in a deliberate attempt to silence pluralism and diversity. In a nation built on free speech, this cannot stand. The law demands that the Escambia county school district put removed or restricted books back on library shelves where they belong.”"

A Yale Psychiatrist’s Tweet About Dershowitz, Her Dismissal, and a Lawsuit; The New York Times, March 26, 2021

 Mihir Zaveri, The New York Times; A Yale Psychiatrist’s Tweet About Dershowitz, Her Dismissal, and a Lawsuit

The psychiatrist, Bandy X. Lee, said she was let go after the lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz complained to the university. Yale said she violated ethics rules against diagnosing public figures, her lawsuit claims.

"Others have questioned the relevance of the Goldwater rule. Jonathan Moreno, a bioethics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said he had not heard of anyone being disciplined by the American Psychiatric Association for violating the rule, even though people repeatedly broke it.

He also said professionals in other medical fields routinely comment in the press about the health of public figures."

Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America's long-held defense of extremist speech; CNN, January 19, 2021

Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN ; Violence at Capitol and beyond reignites a debate over America's long-held defense of extremist speech

"With most Americans hoping this week's expected inauguration protests look nothing like the Capitol siege, questions emerge about unrestrained free expression, long championed by First Amendment theorists as a benefit to society, no matter how ugly and hateful."

After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark; The Seattle Times, April 5, 2020

Brendan Kiley, The Seattle Times; After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark

"“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “It therefore violates the First Amendment.” She also noted a lack of consistency in how the USPTO interpreted the Lanham Act, approving some trademarks and rejecting others that used the same potentially offensive language.

Kerr, Thunderpussy’s attorney, had argued the same point in his appeal to the USPTO.

“I mentioned over 40 trademark applications that had been accepted that included the word ‘pussy,’ ” he said. “Human discretion enters into the process, which is one person forming an opinion based on an internet search — but the implications for the band are enormous.”

The wheels of bureaucracy turned and, on April 4, Kerr finally received a letter from the USPTO granting Thunderpussy registered trademark number 6,021,338."

Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions; University of Pittsburgh University Times, November 18, 2019

Marty Levine, University of Pittsburgh University Times; Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions

"Members of the University Senate’s Faculty Affairs committee say they have met with University officials and voiced concerns that a proposed new anti-harassment measure may potentially stifle classroom discussion and require the entire Pitt community to report suspicious speech to University authorities.

After the meeting, the policy was pulled from a vote before Faculty Assembly."

Kona Stories Book Store to Celebrate Banned Book Week; Big Island Now, September 21, 2019

Big Island Now; Kona Stories Book Store to Celebrate Banned Book Week

"At its heart, Banned Books Week is a celebration of the freedom to access ideas, a fundamental right that belongs to everyone and over which no one person or small group of people should hold sway.

Banned Books Week is a celebration of books, comics, plays, art, journalism and much more. 

At Kona Stories Book Store, books have been wrapped in paper bags to disguise the title. Books are decorated with red “I read banned books” stickers and a brief description of why they are on the list.

Customers are encouraged to buy the books without knowing the titles."

OPINION: The Ethics in Journalism Act is designed to censor journalists; The Sentinel, Kennesaw State University, April 22, 2019

Sean Eikhoff, The Sentinel, Kennesaw State University; OPINION: The Ethics in Journalism Act is designed to censor journalists

"The Ethics in Journalism Act currently in the Georgia House of Representatives is a thinly veiled attempt to censor journalists. A government-created committee with the power to unilaterally suspend or probate journalists is a dangerous concept and was exactly the sort of institution the framers sought to avoid when establishing freedom of the press.

The bill, HB 734, is sponsored by six Republicans and would create a Journalism Ethics Board with nine members appointed by Steve Wrigley, the chancellor of the University of Georgia. This board would be tasked to create a process by which journalists “may be investigated and sanctioned for violating such canons of ethics for journalists to include, but not be limited to, loss or suspension of accreditation, probation, public reprimand and private reprimand.”

The bill is an attempt to violate journalists’ first amendment rights and leave the chance of government punishing journalists for reporting the truth."

Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument; C-SPAN, April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019, C-SPAN; 

"Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Iancu v. Brunetti, a case concerning trademark law and the ban of “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks. Erik Brunetti founded a streetwear brand called “FUCT” back in 1990. Since then, he’s attempted to trademark it but with no success. Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) can refuse an application if it considers it to be “immoral” or “scandalous” and that’s exactly what happened here. The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board also reviewed the application and they too agreed that the mark was “scandalous” and very similar to the word “fucked.” The board also cited that “FUCT” was used on products with sexual imagery and public interpretation of it was “an unmistakable aura of negative sexual connotations.” Mr. Brunetti’s legal team argued that this is in direct violation of his first amendment rights to free speech and private expression. Furthermore, they said speech should be protected under the First Amendment even if one is in disagreement with it. This case eventually came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Brunetti. The federal government then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices will now decide whether the Lanham Act banning “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional."

Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court; The New York Times, January 21, 2019

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court apparently thinks the question is more complicated, as it agreed this month to hear the government’s appeal. If nothing else, the court can use Mr. Brunetti’s case to sort out just what it meant to say in the 2017 decision, which ruled for an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants. (The decision also effectively allowed the Washington Redskins football team to register its trademarks.)

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. But they managed to split 4 to 4 in most of their reasoning, making it hard to analyze how the decision applies in the context of the ban on scandalous terms."

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."

Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People; Comic Book Resources, November 9, 2018

Brandon Zachary, Comic Book Resources; Artist Fired For Trump Cartoons to Release Book Enemy of the People

[Kip Currier: With his singular artistic style and rapier insights, Rob Rogers is truly one of America's great political cartoonists and satirists.

Rogers was treated abysmally by the owners and management of The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and was fired from the paper this year; see this Nov. 4 article in The Washington Post for more background.

It's good to see that his newest compilation Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey will be available for purchase soon.]


"The Pulitzer Prize winner was a 25-year veteran of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette before being unceremoniously fired earlier this year, purportedly because his cartoons were regularly critical of President Trump and his policies.

Titled Enemy of the People: A Cartoonists Journey, the 184-page collection will be released Dec. 11 through the publisher's IDW Limited imprint...

“Satire is the ultimate expression of free speech," Rogers said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "[It] reminds us that we live in a healthy democracy. But we are living in a time like no other in our country’s history, a time when the media is under attack, a time of extreme partisanship. We need satire and editorial cartoons more now than ever.”"

#ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, November 8, 2018

Kip Currier; #ProtectMueller Rapid Response Rally in Pittsburgh--Calling for Recusal of Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, Protection of FBI Investigation by Robert Mueller, and Upholding of Rule of Law: