Tag: political

  • Don’t let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation

    Don’t let Texas criminalize free political speech in the name of AI regulation

    This essay was originally published by the Austin American-Statesman on May 2, 2025.

    Texans aren’t exactly shy about speaking their minds — whether it’s at city hall, in the town square, or all over social media. But a slate of bills now moving through the Texas Legislature threatens to make that proud tradition a criminal offense.

    In the name of regulating artificial intelligence, lawmakers are proposing bills that could turn political memes, commentary and satire into crimes.

    Senate Bills 893 and 228, and House Bills 366 and 556, might be attempting to protect election integrity, but these bills actually impose sweeping restrictions that could silence ordinary Texans just trying to express their opinions.

    Take SB 893 and its companion HB 2795. These would make it a crime to create and share AI-generated images, audio recordings, or videos if done with the intent to “deceive” and “influence the result of an election.” The bill offers a limited safeguard: If you want to share any images covered by the bill, you must edit them to add a government-mandated warning label.

    But the bills never define what counts as “deceptive,” handing prosecutors a blank check to decide what speech crosses the line. That’s a recipe for selective enforcement and criminalizing unpopular opinions. And SB 893 has already passed the Senate.

    Vague laws and open-ended definitions shouldn’t dictate what Texans can say, how they can say it, or which tools they’re allowed to use.

    HB 366, which just passed the House, goes even further. It would require a disclaimer on any political ad that contains “altered media,” even when the content isn’t misleading. With the provisions applying to anyone spending at least $100 on political advertising, which is easily the amount a person could spend to boost a social media post or to print some flyers, a private citizen could be subject to the law.

    Once this threshold is met, an AI-generated meme, a five-second clip on social media, or a goofy Photoshop that gives the opponent a giant cartoon head would all suddenly need a legal warning label. No exceptions for satire, parody or commentary are included. If it didn’t happen in real life, you’re legally obligated to slap a disclaimer on it.

    HB 556 and SB 228 take a similarly broad approach, treating all generative AI as suspect and criminalizing creative political expression.

    These proposals aren’t just overkill, they’re unconstitutional. Courts have long held that parody, satire and even sharp political attacks are protected speech. Requiring Texans to add disclaimers to their opinions simply because they used modern tools to express them is not transparency. It’s compelled speech.

    Besides, Texas already has laws on the books to address defamation, fraud and election interference. What these bills do is expand government control over how Texans express themselves while turning political expression into a legal minefield.

    Fighting deception at the ballot box shouldn’t mean criminalizing creativity or chilling free speech online. Texans shouldn’t need a lawyer to know whether they can post a meme they made on social media or make a joke about a candidate.

    Political life in Texas has been known to be colorful, rowdy and fiercely independent — and that’s how it should stay. Vague laws and open-ended definitions shouldn’t dictate what Texans can say, how they can say it, or which tools they’re allowed to use.

    The Texas Legislature should scrap these overbroad AI bills and defend the Lone Star state’s real legacy: fearless, unapologetic free speech.

    Source link

  • Access and participation is a political question

    Access and participation is a political question

    The question of how we drive access to and participation in higher education among non-traditional groups is intimately linked to the broader question of why we are doing it.

    Accordingly, there are different approaches across the UK. Whereas in the English system the focus is on outreach (partnerships between universities and schools), in Scotland and Wales there is a lot more interest in measuring and shaping university recruitment from underrepresented groups.

    From a purely instrumental perspective there is clearly value in doing both. It is entirely possible that universities and schools could be doing more to encourage able young people to consider universities, and that there are barriers and complexities within the admissions and recruitment process (not to mention the financial, social, and academic challenges of being a student once you get in) that could be usefully addressed.

    The politics of why different approaches have emerged in different places are fascinating. At first though, you might think that a right-of-centre approach would be tied in with the economic benefits of maximising workforce skills and a left-of-centre ideology might be considering utility beyond income generation. Or – for that matter – that the right would foster individual aspirations with the left focused on societal needs.

    But it actually seems to come down to how you think people become intelligent.

    Hardwired

    In his recent book Hayek’s Bastards, Quinn Slobodian characterises the world view of what we might loosely call the postmodern right as “hard borders, hard money, and hardwired human nature”. It’s clearly a politics of status anxiety – but more specifically it has a bearing on higher education policy.

    By “hardwired human nature”, Slobodian is pointing towards something that – at one outer extreme – underpins the confusing resurgence of beliefs in eugenics. These are beliefs in the primacy of nature (your genetic heritage) over nurture (the conditions under which you matured) in developing personal attributes, some of which may be described as “intelligence”. Actual scientists tend to agree that both nature and nurture are likely to have a bearing on your life chances, and empirical evidence tends to back this up. But this comes with a huge asterisk, in that it is very difficult to unpick the two experimentally or with any degree of accuracy.

    If your personal viewpoint tends towards nature, it makes sense to argue that too many people are going to university in that there will be some people that will “naturally” not be able to benefit from the experience. You could point to a declining graduate premium (the “extra money” a graduate will earn over the course of their life) or a lower proportion of graduates working in “graduate jobs” if you wanted evidence that we are currently educating people to degree level who are not able to benefit from it.

    That’s not to say that such evidence is compelling – a sustained and welcome rise in the value of the national minimum wage and rapid changes in the kinds of jobs graduates (and everyone else, for that matter) do offer a counternarrative that sees such “declines” as evidence of a more equitable society and the value of jobs beyond salary or personal benefit.

    Tell them that it’s human nature

    As a sector that is explicitly setting out to improve the skills and life chances of young people, most people working in education tend to lean towards nurture as the major contributing factor to observed intelligence. From this position stems any number of initiatives that aim to make university study accessible, livable, and achievable to people who would not have otherwise gotten involved. If anyone can benefit from university education, surely the right thing to do is to help them.

    From a nature perspective this all looks very odd. Sure, there may be some people who don’t usually go to university that might benefit from such schemes – but applications are merit based anyway. You get in by getting good grades, or interviewing well, or having a good portfolio. When we start flexing these requirements, don’t we devalue the entire experience? Isn’t higher education what we need to be offering the top end of an intelligence hierarchy?

    This might also have to do with the quality of our tools. How confident can we be that the tests we have are indicative either of innate talent or the potential to benefit from education? Indeed, there is cause to wonder whether intelligence itself is measurable (IQ tests being a superb measure of a person’s ability to complete IQ tests, A levels being a great indicator of how middle class your background is).

    If we think our standard entry requirements are perfect, the focus should be on supporting people (both in terms of capability and aspiration) to achieve these before they apply to university. Indeed, recent English system efforts in widening participation have focused on programmes that do things like this (schools partnerships for example) rather than contextual admissions (where students from particular backgrounds are given different entry requirements reflecting their life chances thus far).

    Other peoples children

    Politically, contextual admissions are controversial because of where they sit on the nature and nurture spectrum. They explicitly recognise the difficulties that some groups face in achieving the standard requirements, and modify these requirements (alongside offering additional support).

    The pushback on this seems to me to be because of the perception that university education – or education at certain kinds of university – is a scarce resource (perhaps it once was, but the last few UCAS cycles suggest otherwise). If people who do not hold traditional entry qualifications are allowed to enter universities, it stands to reason that others that do hold the qualifications may not be able to.

    So we are back to status anxiety, in that the perception is that some young people who would otherwise be almost guaranteed access to a prestigious university may no longer have such access, and the addition of students with other backgrounds will change the experience (in academic, or – frankly – social ways) for the traditional students that do get there.

    I say “perception” because in the main the expansion of many high tariff universities has been such that the idea of anyone with the right grades being unable to get in is not the threat that it once was. Again, to be blunt, there always will be people disappointed and confused about not getting into Cambridge, Oxford, medical school, or the more selective conservatoires.

    The recent Universities UK and Sutton Trust statement on contextual admissions is about clarifying and documenting practices and processes – both to help those who may benefit access what schemes exist, and to reassure those with concerns about the validity of such programmes. It won’t assuage all the concerns, but shedding light on the issue can only help. Of course, for some the mere existence of such schemes – or any suspicion that universities should be encouraged to run them – will be anathema.

    Enough?

    The elephant in this particular room is, of course, the capacity of the economy to absorb graduates. I’ve often heard it argued that there are simply too many graduates – both in terms of how this “crowds out” the benefits of being a graduate in the job market, and in terms of whether we really need all those graduates to do the jobs they are doing.

    For me, this reaches across to the hard borders end of modern right-wing political thought. If you think lots of people in online newspaper comment sections are upset about too many graduates, just ask them about how many immigrants we have! We import a vast number of graduates from overseas (and, indeed, overseas students) in order for them to take on graduate roles in the UK economy. NHS staff are the obvious example, but there are demands everywhere – from heavy engineering to biosciences, from the creative industries to staff working in professional sports.

    And a highly skilled workforce is a more productive, and thus more valuable, workforce. The economics are clear.

    There are wider benefits too. Graduates tend to be healthier and happier, meaning less pressure on public services. They disproportionally work in public services that benefit us all. They are more likely to develop high value innovations and scientific breakthroughs. More likely to start successful companies that employ others. They are generally paid more – so they spend more. They raise the value of property and businesses in their locality. They commit less crime.

    Employers, then, are generally pretty keen on access to graduates. Policy makers, and the rest of us, probably should be too. The choice appears to be more UK people going to university or more immigration – the meaningful policy conversation becomes around what people study when they get there.

    Source link

  • 30pm film screening about political intimidation and UM (Community Advocates at the University of Michigan)

    30pm film screening about political intimidation and UM (Community Advocates at the University of Michigan)

    Journalist Jelani Cobb recommended looking at how universities
    responded to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s attacks on professors to better understand
    current strategies. The University of Michigan’s caving to political
    intimidation isn’t new. In the 1950s, then President Harlan Hatcher
    fired two faculty members and suspended one who refused to cooperate
    with Senator McCarthy’s red-baiting Committee on “Un-American
    Activities.”

    As another federal government takes aim at universities, join us for a screening of Keeping in Mind: The McCarthy Era at the University of Michigan,
    a 1989 documentary featuring interviews with Hatcher and the three men
    he sacrificed to political expediency: Chandler Davis, Clement Markert,
    and Mark Nickerson. The screening will be followed by a panel discussion
    that includes the filmmaker, Adam Kulakow, who was a UM student in the
    1980s.

    WHEN: Wednesday, April 9, 5-7:30pm (Pizza available starting at 4:30p. Come early!)
    WHERE: Maize and Blue Auditorium, Student Activities Building, 515 E. Jefferson Street
    WHO: All students, faculty, staff, and community members


     

    Source link

  • What next for int’l education after South Korea’s political crisis?

    What next for int’l education after South Korea’s political crisis?

    On April 4, 2025, South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, marking a historic conclusion to 122 days of political turmoil triggered by his failed declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024.

    However, the damage sustained during the transitionary period proved irreversible. Massive public protests, legal battles, sharply divided public opinion, and a temporary presidential suspension culminated in Yoon’s permanent removal from office.

    This article examines how the political crisis has disrupted international higher education in South Korea, focusing on five key areas: reputational damage, impact on students from Asia and the Global South, rising xenophobia, heightened student anxiety, and the sidelining of education policy.

    A blow to Korea’s brand

    Before the political crisis of late 2024, Korea had successfully positioned itself as one of Asia’s most attractive destinations for international students, combining strong government support, cultural appeal through the Korea’s soft power, and a reputation for safety and modernity.

    The country’s international student population had surged to over 200,000 by mid-2024, driven by initiatives like the Study Korea 300K strategy and bolstered by perceptions of national stability.

    However, Yoon’s abrupt declaration of martial law and the ensuing constitutional crisis shattered this image. International media coverage of soldiers surrounding parliament and global expressions of concern drew unsettling comparisons to authoritarian eras, eroding the confidence that had fuelled South Korea’s internationalisation drive. While little direct harm came to students, the perception of fragility alone risks deterring future enrolments.

    Disruptions for the global south

    The political crisis affected international students from Asia and the Global South, who make up the vast majority of the country’s foreign enrolment.

    With countries like China, Vietnam, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan sending thousands annually, students were drawn by proximity, affordability, and opportunity – but instead found themselves facing uncertainty, confusion, and fear.

    The brief but shocking declaration of martial law raised urgent concerns about campus safety, academic continuity, and visa stability, prompting embassies and international offices to issue advisories and support measures.

    Although campuses largely remained operational, the prolonged instability created bureaucratic delays, disrupted programs, and heightened anxiety, especially for students from politically sensitive backgrounds. The overall experience tested students’ faith in Korea as a stable destination.

    Polarisation and the rise of xenophobia

    The political crisis intensified domestic polarisation and spilled over into rising xenophobia, particularly targeting Chinese nationals. Fueled by conspiracy theories and nationalist rhetoric, Yoon’s supporters alleged foreign interference in South Korean politics, echoing fringe narratives prevalent among far-right media.

    These claims, amplified by partisan outlets and street rallies, created an atmosphere of suspicion and scapegoating against a narrowly profiled demographic. While many South Koreans rejected these xenophobic narratives, the episode revealed how quickly foreign students can become collateral damage in domestic political conflicts.

    Heightened anxiety and mental health concerns

    Over the past four months, international students in South Korea have faced heightened anxiety as political turmoil compounded the usual challenges of studying abroad. The situation introduced fears ranging from immediate safety during protests to long-term worries about academic continuity, visa stability, and career prospects.

    International students in South Korea have faced heightened anxiety as political turmoil compounded the usual challenges of studying abroad

    Many students, especially those unfamiliar with Korea’s political system or fluent only in limited Korean language, struggled to interpret rapidly unfolding events, and some even began contingency planning in case of campus closures or evacuation.

    Mental health stressors were exacerbated by long-distance concerns from worried families, unfamiliar political polarisation, and rising xenophobia.

    Higher education policy and discourse sidelined

    Most importantly, national discourse on higher education was effectively sidelined as government attention and public debate fixated on the impeachment process.

    While some initiatives, like the IEQAS certification and the Glocal Project, quietly moved forward, they received minimal coverage or engagement. The leadership vacuum and political paralysis delayed or derailed potential reforms, only resulting in many schools’ collective move to raise tuition fees after a 16-year freeze.

    Within universities, students and faculty who might normally advocate for education policy were drawn into the political fray, and civil discourse on educational development disappeared from the national agenda.

    International education standpoint

    From an international education perspective, the crisis tarnishes South Korea’s branding as a rising study destination.

    The martial law incident and subsequent impeachment chaos created precisely the kind of uncertainty that can give students and parents pause. For example, Hong Kong experienced a notable challenge in international student interest after the protest upheavals of 2019/20, as safety and political issues became a concern.

    No expert in this field would overlook the fact that one of the most powerful drivers of human migration is the political and social compatibility between home and host countries. This helps explain why Korea and Japan have become two of the most attractive destinations for international students in Asia.

    Looking ahead: time for rebuilding

    With the Constitutional Court having issued its ruling, the path to restoring its global reputation hinges on reaffirming its commitment to inclusion, transparency, and predictability. The crisis has illuminated how deeply political instability can affect international education and serves as a cautionary example for emerging study destinations: preserving democratic norms and open societies is essential to sustaining trust and long-term progress in the global arena.

    Rebuilding Korea’s global education brand will require more than a return to stability; it will necessitate deliberate reassurances of democratic resilience, institutional integrity, and a sustained commitment to providing a safe, welcoming environment for international students.

    On the bright side, the decision, grounded in constitutional procedure, stands as a testament to the resilience and maturity of Korea’s democratic institutions

    On the bright side, the decision, grounded in constitutional procedure, stands as a testament to the resilience and maturity of Korea’s democratic institutions. Despite the turbulence, the peaceful and lawful resolution of the crisis reaffirms the country’s enduring commitment to the rule of law, institutional checks and balances, and civic accountability.

    For international observers and students alike, this outcome offers a renewed sense of confidence that Korea’s democratic foundations remain robust. As such, it opens the door for a more transparent and inclusive national recovery, one where education, international engagement, and democratic integrity can move forward together.

    All in all, on the heels of the impeachment, restoring confidence in the national system and reviving the momentum of internationalisation and higher education reform must become a central national priority.

    Source link

  • Victory in Virginia! Gov. Youngkin defends free speech by vetoing bill on ‘altered’ political media

    Victory in Virginia! Gov. Youngkin defends free speech by vetoing bill on ‘altered’ political media

    If you were planning to post an edited photo online of a Virginia political candidate during the next election, you might’ve been in trouble. 

    After FIRE’s opposition and outreach on this bill, Gov. Glenn Youngkin just prevented that from happening by vetoing HB 2479. 

    The Virginia General Assembly passed HB 2479 to suppress “altered” and AI-generated depictions of candidates — enforced with threats of fines and even jail time — unless a conspicuous disclaimer was added. Instead of trusting the public to decide what’s true, false, or credible, HB 2479 would have violated the free speech rights of Virginians to make the government into the arbiter of truth. 

    This bill would’ve made it illegal for virtually any Virginian to sponsor an “electioneering communication” that contains “altered” or AI-generated images or audio recordings of identifiable candidates running for elected office. This included messages appearing in print, TV, radio, or online platforms within 60 days of an election. 

    Not only would it have included traditional paid campaign ads, but anyone’s speech expressing support for or against a candidate that involves the exchange of something of value and appears in a paper, a broadcast, or is promoted online for a fee. This could include using an AI tool that requires a paid license or even posting on a social media platform using a paid premium account that many platforms offer to extend the content’s visibility and reach.

    What “altered” means is anyone’s guess — but the government would be the decider.  Any edit that created a “fundamentally different impression” of the photo or video could count, meaning it could have covered even simple edits like cropping a photo. If an image of a candidate was cropped to fit onto a page, an aggrieved candidate could sue and argue that the crop created a “fundamentally different impression” from the original if the portion cropped out removed some kind of context — such as part of the background or another person.

    And every speaker was covered, not just mud-slinging political opponents. Suppose a small business owner buys space in a newspaper to highlight how a mayor running for reelection failed to address public safety concerns outside her shop. If she includes a slightly edited and unflattering image of the mayor, she could have been sued — even if the content is not misleading (or even relevant).

    The disclaimer requirement wouldn’t have solved the bill’s problems, and in fact created new ones. The First Amendment protects both your right to speak your mind and to hold your tongue, but disclaimers force you to utter government-mandated speech.   Even worse, the disclaimer here could have actually misled voters into thinking that someone is spreading falsehoods — even if the ad was factually accurate — simply because edited or AI-generated material was included. 

    Lawmakers certainly need to protect the electoral process, but this bill would have done the opposite, and it restricted far more speech than necessary to prevent true voter deception. It therefore was unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny. 

    The better, constitutional way to fight falsehoods that arise during campaigns is to let candidates fight speech with more speech. If an ad is misleading or outright wrong, candidates can and should point it out. Should any depictions of candidates rise to the level of being actually defamatory, Virginia already has laws to address it. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects our right to use expressive tools like AI to enhance political communication.

    Our system of government hinges on the freedom to freely express our opinions about candidates for public office. We commend Youngkin for his veto, which will help preserve the First Amendment rights of Virginians and ensure a vibrant, open political discourse.

    Source link

  • The FCC’s show trial against CBS is a political power play

    The FCC’s show trial against CBS is a political power play

    This article originally appeared in Reason on March 14, 2025

    The Federal Communications Commission is conducting an unseemly and unconstitutional spectacle, ostensibly to determine whether CBS violated its policy against “news distortion” by editing a “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Its real purpose is to exercise raw partisan power.

    The FCC already knows CBS did not violate any rules and merely engaged in everyday journalism. And there is nothing to be learned from the over 8,000 comments and counting that have poured into the commission’s inbox. Many simply registered their like or dislike of the network and mainstream media in general, and many others were just unserious quips submitted to troll the regulators.

    But judging the merits of the “news distortion” allegation was never the point. The FCC staff already dismissed the complaint—filed by a partisan activist group—as fatally defective back in January. As outgoing FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained, “The FCC should not be the President’s speech police. . . . The FCC should not be journalism’s censor-in-chief.” But one of Brendan Carr’s first acts as the new FCC chair in Donald Trump’s administration was to reinstate the complaint and call for public comments.

    Asking members of the public to “vote” on how they feel about a news organization’s editorial policies or whether they think the network violated FCC rules is both pointless and constitutionally infirm. In 1943, Justice Robert Jackson wrote that the right to free speech and a free press “may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    The FCC’s reanimated proceeding lacks any legitimate regulatory rationale. But its realpolitik purpose is sadly transparent. This fishing expedition is designed to exert maximum political leverage on the CBS network at a time when Trump is engaged in preposterous litigation over the same “60 Minutes” broadcast, claiming CBS’ editing violates a Texas law against fraudulent commercial transactions. Adding to the pressure, Chairman Carr said he will consider the thousands of comments in this proceeding when evaluating whether to approve a merger of Skydance Media and CBS parent company Paramount Global worth billions of dollars.

    There is a name for what the FCC is doing in this proceeding: a show trial. When investigations become a performative exercise designed to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. 

    There is nothing here for the FCC to investigate. The complaint alleges that Harris gave a “word salad” response to a question about whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was listening to the Biden administration and that CBS edited it to make her sound more articulate. One part of her responses was aired on “60 Minutes” and another part aired on “Face the Nation.”

    In short, CBS stands accused of committing journalism. Every day, from the smallest newspaper to the largest network, reporters and editors must make sense of and condense the information they collect—including quotes from politicians and other newsmakers—to tell their stories concisely and understandably. That task necessarily requires editing, including selecting what quotes to use. If the cockamamie theory underlying this FCC “investigation” had any merit, every newsroom in America would be a crime scene.

    That’s why the FCC in the past has never defined the editing process as “news distortion.” In fact, the commission made quite clear when it first articulated the news distortion policy in 1969 that “we do not mean the type of situation, frequently encountered, where a person quoted on a news program complains that he very clearly said something else.” It stressed, “We do not sit to review the broadcaster’s news judgment, the quality of his news and public affairs reporting, or his taste.”

    The commission understood that this very narrow approach is required to respect both the First Amendment and the Communications Act, which denies the FCC “the power of censorship.” As the FCC observed, “In this democracy, no Government agency can authenticate the news, or should try to do so.”

    There is a name for what the FCC is doing in this proceeding: a show trial. When investigations become a performative exercise designed to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. Show trials are intended to send a message, not just to their unfortunate victims, but to other would-be transgressors.

    FIRE calls out 60 Minutes investigation as ‘political stunt’ in comment to FCC

    News

    FIRE submitted a comment to the Federal Communications Commission about a complaint about a 60 Minutes interview with then Vice President Kamala Harris.


    Read More

    There is a dark and deadly history of such proceedings in authoritarian regimes around the world, ranging from Josef Stalin’s purges of perceived political opponents to China’s trials of “rioters and counterrevolutionaries” after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. Though less extreme in nature, during the Red Scare, the House Committee on Un-American Activities similarly staged show hearings where they pressured witnesses to name names while presuming guilt. The stakes of a sham FCC proceeding may differ, but the tactics and perversion of the rule of law are the same. 

    Somewhere along the way, the FCC’s current leadership abandoned that basic truth in exchange for political expediency. And in doing so, it is ignoring a unanimous holding from the Supreme Court just last term that threatening legal sanctions and other means of coercion to suppress disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. 

    The commission can begin to recover some dignity only by dropping this show trial immediately.

    Source link

  • Intimidating abridgments and political stunts — First Amendment News 461

    Intimidating abridgments and political stunts — First Amendment News 461

    “This proceeding is a political stunt.”

    Those were the words with which FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere (joined by FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London and FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley) submitted comments on behalf of FIRE to the Federal Communications Commission concerning a complaint by the Center for American Rights.

    Such “political stunts” have become more the norm with the Trump administration. Consider, for example, the recent crazy letter by Trump’s interim U.S. attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., in which he tried to intimidate the dean of Georgetown Law School by saying that if the school continued to teach DEI, his office would not hire their students. Or consider the bizarre attempt by the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner to change Maine’s Social Security requirements because their governor criticized Trump. 

    As to the Center for American Rights’ FCC complaint, it alleged “news distortion” by CBS Broadcasting when it assertedly edited the news program 60 Minutes “to such a great extent” that the “public cannot know what answer . . . Vice President [Kamala Harris] actually gave to a question of great importance.”

    The FCC had originally dismissed the complaint because the center failed to make a viable allegation of “intentional” or “deliberate” falsification, as opposed to merely an editorial judgment protected under the First Amendment.

    Nonetheless, on Jan. 20, the FCC seated Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr, and two days later the FCC reinstated the center’s complaint and then invited public comments. 

    It is against that backdrop that Corn-Revere and his colleagues, acting on behalf of FIRE, offered their comments.

    Below are a few of the statements set out in FIRE’s poignant comments on the FCC matter:

    Public comments and the legitimate scope of the Commission’s enforcement authority:

    FIRE . . . seeks to ensure the FCC does not exceed the scope of its authority in encroaching on broadcasters’ journalistic decisions. . . The general public is not a “party” to enforcement proceedings, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1202(d)(1)(iii), and generally lacks standing in such matters. 

    Then what is the point of all this? By seeking public comment, is the Commission seriously asking viewers and listeners, along with politically energized partisans, to “vote” on whether they think CBS’s editorial choices ran afoul of FCC policies? Any such submissions are meaningless in helping the agency decide whether CBS violated any policies or what remedies might lie.

    The commission’s attempt to regulate editorial judgments:

    [B]ecause this proceeding focuses entirely on a news program’s editorial judgment, it runs headlong into the elementary rule that the right to “free speech [and] a free press…may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    Using the law to pressure CBS:

    Bottom line, the Commission’s request for public comment lacks any legitimate regulatory rationale, but its realpolitik purpose is sadly transparent. This proceeding is designed to exert maximum political leverage on the CBS network at a time when President Trump is engaged in frivolous litigation against it over the same 60 Minutes broadcast, with the FCC using other regulatory approvals the network needs to exert added pressure.”

    An unconstitutional use of regulatory power:

    This is not just unseemly, it is precisely the sort of unconstitutional abuse of regulatory authority the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). The Court held that regulators violate the First Amendment when they use their official powers over certain transactions in ways designed “to suppress the speech of organizations that they have no direct control over.”

    And then, with historical accuracy and legal acumen, Corn-Revere, London, and Creeley tendered a powerful point (emphasis added and notes omitted):

    There is a name for this kind of thing — it is called a show trial. When proceedings become a performative exercise conducted to further a political purpose, they forfeit any claim to legitimacy. Show trials tend to be retributive rather than corrective and are designed to send a message, not just to their unfortunate victims, but as a warning to other would-be transgressors. There is a dark and deadly history of such showcase proceedings in authoritarian regimes around the world, ranging from Stalin’s purges of perceived political opponents to China’s trials of “rioters and counterrevolutionaries” after the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. In our own country, similar tactics were employed during the Red Scare with investigations and hearings aptly described by the Chairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities as “the best show the committee has had yet.” Those who staged the proceedings “were not seeking justice but staging a show trial to accuse, indict, and punish.” And while the stakes of a sham FCC proceeding obviously differ, the perversion of the rule of law is the same.

    Note

    Corn-Revere was a legal adviser to FCC Commissioner James H. Quello from 1990 to 1993 and was Chief Counsel while Quello was interim chair of the FCC in 1993. Among other works, he is the editor of the 1997 book “Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating the Electronic Media.”

    Beyond stunts

    In all of this, it is important to emphasize a critical point: It is not partisan to speak out against authoritarianism. It is vital.

    Furthermore, and as the poet Lawrence Ferlinghetti (a strong defender of free speech) put it in his book “Poetry as an Insurgent Art”:

    Governments lie. The voice of the government
    is often not the voice of the people. 
    Speak up. Act out. Silence is complicity.

    What we are witnessing in the first weeks of the Trump administration is more than intimidating political stunts; it is the start of the serial suppression of free speech. See, for example, Michelle Goldberg’s piece in The New York Times, “This Is the Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare,” in which she writes that “a government [so] willing to disregard the First Amendment is a danger to us all.”

    I will say more about this general point in a future post. Meanwhile, next week I will post another installment of professor Timothy Zick’s “Executive Watch.”

    Trump v. CBS update

    Thomas C. Riney

    Thomas C. Riney (lead counsel for defendants)

    Argument

    1. The Lanham Act And The DTPA Do Not And Could Not, Consistent With The First Amendment Apply To Editorial Speech Like The Broadcasts At Issue
      1. Editorial Speech About Public Officials During An Election Enjoys Maximum First Amendment Protection 
      2. Consistent With The First Amendment, The Lanham Act And The DTPA Extend Only To Commercial Speech 
      3. The FTN And 60 Minutes Broadcasts Are Indisputably Editorial, Not Commercial, Speech
    2. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead Article III Standing 
    3. President Trump Fails To Plead A Lanham Act Claim
    4. Plaintiffs Fail To Plead A DTPA Claim

    Revenge Storm: ‘Chill all the lawyers’

    • G.S. Hans, “Trump’s Attacks On Law Firms Are Borrowed From Some Pretty Famous Despots,” Balls and Strikes (March 10)

    Threatening lawyers and legal organizations remains a classic from the despot’s playbook. Letting these orders stand without robust opposition — such as lawsuits from the affected firms, media statements from their leaders, and advocacy from similarly situated law firms — merely makes it easier for this administration to continue to stomp on less prominent targets.

    Ronnie London on the Trump administration’s directive to impose court costs on rights litigants

    FIRE general counsel Ronnie London

    FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London

    A new White House directive to heads of executive departments and agencies threatens to make it prohibitively expensive for Americans to defend the Constitution in court. The memo “directs” the departments and agencies to “demand” that courts make those seeking injunctions against federal actions “cover the costs . . . incurred if the Government is ultimately found to have been wrongfully enjoined.”

    The move could not be more transparent in attempting to scare off potential litigants challenging executive orders or other federal actions of questionable constitutionality.

    The White House deems this necessary because “activist organizations” are supposedly “inserting themselves into the executive policy making process” and have “obtained sweeping injunctions.” The administration claims Rule 65(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure mandates security bonds for all preliminary injunctions and temporary restraining orders to protect against the prospect of a later judicial ruling that the defendant was improperly enjoined.

    But this is misleading. That literal reading of the rule may make sense in the mine-run of private disputes, like claims in commercial contexts. But courts have long recognized exceptions for public-interest litigation, especially when it comes to those seeking to protect constitutional rights. In other words, “activist groups” like FIRE and the clients we proudly defend.

    David Cole on self-censorship

    David Cole ACLU Legal Director

    Former ACLU Legal Director David Cole

    The Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education has many college administrators running scared. The Chronicle of Higher Education, which is tracking DEI changes, has already identified forty-one campuses that have altered or dismantled their programs since Inauguration Day. The University of North Carolina ordered all its colleges to remove DEI-related courses from its requirements for specific majors or general education. The University of Alaska will not use the terms “diversity,” “equity,” or “inclusion” in any communications. Columbia “removed diversity, equity, and inclusion policy language from several of its websites.” Northwestern’s business school “removed a diversity, equity, and inclusion pathway from its MBA program.” Vanderbilt “took down its Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion page, which now redirects to ‘You at VU.’” And on Friday, the University of Virginia governing board voted to end all DEI at the state’s flagship school.

    Yet not a single one of these changes was necessary. This is self-censorship. It’s what Trump wants — but it’s not what either his executive order or federal law requires. Clarifying that confusion is essential as more colleges plan their response to Trump’s attack. But so is a little courage on the part of college administrators.

    Executive Watch

    New cert. grant on ‘conversion therapy’ case  

    • Chiles v. Salazar: Issue: Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

    John Bursch (Counsel of Record, Alliance Defending Freedom)

    [T]he Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chiles v. Salazar, a First Amendment challenge to a Colorado law that prohibits so-called “conversion therapy” for minors. At issue is whether this is a permissible regulation of professional conduct or a viewpoint-based restriction on speech (with potential religious liberty implications as well). This will almost certainly be one of the most watched (and potentially most controversial) cases of next term.

    Cert denied in college reporting bias case

    • Speech First, Inc. v. Whitten: Issue: Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.

    Related

    The Supreme Court said March 3 it wouldn’t hear a challenge from conservative college students who say their freedom of speech is violated by a university program for reporting allegations of bias. Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly said they would have heard the case.”)

    Primate speech: PETA’s First Amendment complaint

    The case is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. National Institute of Mental Health (Dist. Ct., MD, March 6, 2025). The lead lawyer for the Plaintiff is Laura Handman. 

    Laura Handman

    Laura Handman (Counsel for Plaintiff)

    Below are a few excerpts from the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland:

    This lawsuit seeks to enforce the fundamental first amendment right of Plaintiff, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA), to receive, without censorship or interference, communications from fellow primates, imprisoned and tortured in the laboratory of Elisabeth Murray, PhD, at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland.

    The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides PETA a right to receive communications from willing speakers. This right exists regardless of whether the speakers themselves possess First Amendment rights. The First Amendment also protects nonverbal communications as speech.

    PETA engages in extensive news gathering and reporting activities as part of its charitable animal protection mission. This includes substantial investigation and reporting on the plight of animals subject to experimentation, including specifically the deprivations and injuries inflicted on the captive rhesus macaques in Murray’s NIMH laboratory. This Circuit has applied first amendment protections to PETA’s new gathering activities.

    News gathering serves a particularly powerful function under the First Amendment when seeking access to incarcerated beings whose voices are otherwise silenced, to ascertain information about their conditions.

    The captive rhesus macaques, including but not limited to Beamish, Sam Smith, Nick Nack, and Cersi in Murray’s NIMH laboratory are willing speakers under the First Amendment, regularly communicating about their physical and psychological pain and suffering through vocalizations, facial expressions, head and limb movements, body postures, and stereotypical behavior, indicating anxiety and depression (including pacing, rocking, pulling out their hair, and biting their flesh).

    [ . . . ]

    PETA has a right to receive those communications in real time directly from the rhesus macaques and to report the information received to the American people in order to inform the public discourse on the highly controversial and much criticized issue of government funded experiments on animals. Without these communications, the public will remain inadequately informed about the circumstances of their fellow primates.

    This lawsuit follows the Defendants’ refusal of PETA’s August 5, 2024 written request for reasonable, uncensored, and unedited access to a live streamed audiovisual feed of the rhesus macaques in Murray’s laboratory in order to receive the macaques’ communications and exercise its first right to listen. Defendants also refused PETA’s offer in this letter to cooperate in devising and the alternative means for PETA to meaningfully access the macaques’ communication in real time without government interference [citations omitted]. 

    New scholarly article: Abrams, et al, on the press clause

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 460: “James Goodale on Trump: ‘He’d sue everybody . . . in the media business’ and their ‘response has been pathetic’”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • FIRE calls out 60 Minutes investigation as ‘political stunt’ in comment to FCC

    FIRE calls out 60 Minutes investigation as ‘political stunt’ in comment to FCC

    Below is the summary of argument in FIRE’s comment to the FCC on its opening a proceeding to investigate claims of news distortion by 60 Minutes in airing an interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris, filed today.

    This proceeding is a political stunt. Neither the Center for American Rights’ (CAR) complaint nor this Commission’s decision to reopen its inquiry accords with how the agency has understood and applied its broadcast regulations ever. To the contrary, the Commission has made clear it “is not the national arbiter of the truth,” Complaints Covering CBS Program “Hunger in America,” 20 F.C.C.2d 143, 151 (1969), and it has strictly avoided the type of review sought here because “[i]t would involve the Commission deeply and improperly in the journalistic functions of broadcasters.” Complaint Concerning the CBS Program “The Selling of the Pentagon,” 30 F.C.C.2d 150, 152 (1971). The staff’s initial dismissal of CAR’s complaint was obviously correct.

    For the Commission to reopen the matter and to seek public comment turns this proceeding into an illegitimate show trial. This is an adjudicatory question, not a rulemaking, and asking members of the public to “vote” on how they feel about a news organization’s editorial policies is both pointless and constitutionally infirm. Prolonging this matter is especially unseemly when paired with FCC review of a pending merger application involving CBS’s parent corporation and the fact that President Trump is currently involved in frivolous litigation over the same 60 Minutes broadcast. In this context, this proceeding is precisely the kind of unconstitutional abuse of regulatory authority the Supreme Court unanimously condemned in NRA v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024). However, having solicited public comments, the FCC is obligated to respond to the statutory and constitutional objections raised on this record.

    The CAR complaint rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Commission’s limited role in regulating broadcast journalism and fails to grasp the basic elements of the news distortion policy as the FCC historically has defined and applied it. This agency has never asserted the authority to police news editing and has rightly observed that it would result in a “quagmire” even to try. Hunger in America, 20 F.C.C.2d at 150. The news distortion policy simply does not involve itself with “a judgment as to what was presented, as against what should have been presented,” Network Coverage of the Democratic Nat’l Convention, 16 F.C.C.2d 650, 657–58 (1969), yet that is CAR’s sole complaint. And even if CBS’s editorial decisions in 60 Minutes fell within the range of activities governed by the news distortion policy, the CAR complaint is utterly deficient. It does not present any “extrinsic evidence” of news distortion as the policy requires, and the full unedited transcript of the interview in question shows the network’s editing did not alter the substance of the answers given. CAR’s complaint merely reflects its own editorial preferences, which cannot justify this inquiry.

    Even if the FCC’s news distortion policy somehow authorized the Commission to act as editor-in-chief, as CAR imagines, the Communications Act and the First Amendment prohibit such intrusion into journalistic decisions. The Act expressly denies to the FCC “the power of censor- ship” as well as the ability to promulgate any “regulation or condition” that interferes with freedom of speech. 47 U.S.C. § 326. The FCC accordingly has interpreted its powers narrowly so as not to conflict with the First Amendment. And whatever limited authority the Commission might have possessed in the era the news distortion policy was created has diminished over time with changes in technology. Any attempt in this proceeding to apply a more robust view of the Commission’s public interest authority to include an ability to review and dictate individual news judgments would stretch the FCC’s public interest mandate to the breaking point.

    Ultimately, no FCC policy can override the First Amendment’s fundamental bar against the government compelling editors and publishers “to publish that which ‘reason tells them should not be published.’” Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256 (1974) (citation omitted). “For better or worse, editing is what editors are for; and editing is selection and choice of material.” CBS, Inc. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., 412 U.S. 94, 120 (1973). The news distortion policy still exists only because of the exceedingly limited role the Commission has given it over the years, and this proceeding is not a vehicle for expanding its reach.

    Finally, this proceeding itself is an exercise in unconstitutional jawboning. The Commission must heed the Supreme Court’s recent reminder that the “‘threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion … to achieve the suppression’ of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 180. The purpose and timing of this inquiry are both obvious and unjustifiable. Launching a politically fraught investigation based on such a paper-thin complaint in these circumstances is alone a compelling example of regulatory abuse. But to resurrect the flimsy complaint after it was fully and properly interred by staff dismissal, and to do so in support of the President’s private litigation position, is all but a signed confession of unconstitutional jawboning. The Commission can begin to recover some dignity only by dropping the matter immediately.

    READ THE FULL COMMENT BELOW

    Source link

  • Political Attacks on Higher Education (AAUP)

    Political Attacks on Higher Education (AAUP)

    The Trump administration and many state governments are accelerating
    attacks on academic freedom, shared governance, and higher education as a
    public good. We are working with our chapters and with allies in higher
    ed and the labor movement to defend and advance our vision: Higher
    education that is accessible and affordable for all who want it. Freedom
    to teach, to learn, to conduct research, to speak out on issues of the
    day, and to assemble in the organizations of our choice. Colleges and
    universities that create opportunity for students, workers, and
    communities. Sufficient funding to provide true education and
    sustainable working conditions. Information and resources to help in
    this fight are being added below as they are developed.

    Immigration

    Attacks on Science and Research

    Federal Funding 

    Accreditation

    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

    Anticipatory Obedience

    Administrations sometimes go farther than the law requires to placate those who are attacking higher ed.

    Source link

  • Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    Govs. DeSantis, Hochul threaten academic freedom with political interference

    It’s no secret that politicians are getting more involved in higher education. And while some level of involvement with how colleges and universities operate is appropriate given the amount of taxpayer money spent on campuses, nobody should be surprised to learn that greater political involvement can pose academic freedom risks.

    Last Monday, for example, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the creation of Florida’s own Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE), named after the Trump Administration’s Elon Musk-led initiative to cut federal spending. The Florida task force is to conduct “a deep dive into all facets of college and university operations and spending and make recommendations to the Board of Governors and State Board of Education to eliminate any wasteful spending.”

    There are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment.

    During his live announcement, DeSantis expanded on what he called “the DOGE-ing of our state university system,” saying it would include “examining courses, programming, and staff” with an aim towards helping students gain “meaningful employment.” But the governor also, troublingly, made clear that he’s continuing to take aim at a particular set of viewpoints:

    [S]ome of the ideological studies stuff, we just want to prune that and get that out, and we want to make sure that these universities are really serving the classical mission of what a university should be. And that’s not to impose ideology.

    Politicians have long complained about taxpayer money spent on what they see as frivolous academic pursuits — the proverbial degree in “underwater basket weaving” — but what DeSantis posits goes further. This task force won’t simply be focused on (say) eliminating majors that offer no real job prospects. Rather, it will seek out courses involving “ideological studies stuff,” presumably by reviewing course descriptions or syllabi, that in the task force’s view is not worth teaching. 

    That’s not just an invitation to viewpoint discrimination — it’s an explicit mandate.

    It’s not hard to see how this could threaten academic freedom by pressuring faculty members to substitute state-level politics for their academic judgment. 

    For example, let’s say the University of Florida’s Chinese Studies department decides that, to understand contemporary China, students need to take a class on Marxist-Leninist political thought. It’s easy to see how this could be relevant given that China is a Communist country. It’s also easy to see how an outside agency like Florida DOGE might view this as an effort to propagandize students into Marxism.

    What’s the likely result?

    • Most obviously, the department might decide to avoid conflict with the government by eliminating the class altogether despite believing it was needed, therefore impoverishing students’ education.
    • Even if it did decide to require the class, the department is likely to pressure its instructor not to include things that look pro-Marxist, regardless of whether the professor thinks it would be the best material for the course. That poorly serves students and limits a professor’s ability to engage in the intellectual pursuit of teaching, to boot.
    • Finally, even if the department were to offer the class without compromising on content, its instructor will most certainly feel “in the crosshairs,” restricted from following his or her academic conscience lest he or she get the class eliminated through an incautious word.

    Colleges should not be immune from investigations into waste and abuse. And there are viewpoint-based decisions that governors and legislatures have to make about colleges as part of the political and appropriations process. But the more granular those decisions, the more they threaten to substitute academic judgment with political judgment. It remains to be seen whether this is how Florida DOGE will actually operate, but the governor’s remarks create plenty of cause for concern.

    Lest there be any doubt that governors of any party are capable of interfering in isolated academic decisions if given the opportunity, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (no friend of DeSantis) last Tuesday ordered the immediate removal of a CUNY-Hunter College job posting for a professor of Palestinian Studies. Hochul also ordered “a thorough review of the position to ensure that antisemitic theories are not promoted in the classroom.”

    The job listing certainly listed plenty of controversial topics, calling for a “historically grounded scholar who takes a critical lens to issues pertaining to Palestine including but not limited to: settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid, migration, climate and infrastructure devastation, health, race, gender, and sexuality.” Yet the very next sentence stated, “We are open to diverse theoretical and methodological approaches.”

    Critics are unlikely to believe that the job was really open to scholars with diverse approaches to whether, say, Israel is an “apartheid” state. Maybe it was, maybe not. But one can’t make that determination simply based on the language of the listing, and there is no reason to believe that the governor of New York is (or should be expected to be) the best-qualified person to make that call.

    Faculty members are supposed to be hired because they are subject-matter experts who have the ability and knowledge in the field to make informed academic judgments. Readers may recall that Winston Churchill famously opined that democracy is “the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.” That’s just as true when it comes to academic faculty making academic decisions — like it or not, there are no better alternatives. Even if one believes a particular group of public college faculty is, itself, making decisions that harm higher education, as DeSantis and Hochul both seem to believe, there’s one thing we can know for sure: transferring that job to politicians will only make it worse.

    Source link