Monday, December 10, 2018
#FREESPEECH IN THE NEWS: DECEMBER 10, 2018
As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news – and what you should know about – in the past week.
1.) Conservative groups settle campus bias suit with UC Berkeley
UC Berkeley has paid a settlement after it was sued and accused of impeding students’ free speech rights. In paying the settlement, the university won’t have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the lawsuit.
Conservative groups that accused UC Berkeley of discriminating against their campus speakers dropped their lawsuit Monday, while the university agreed not to charge fees or relocate speeches based on the speaker’s viewpoint — a policy that school officials said they have always followed.
The settlement includes a $70,000 payment by the university to the plaintiffs, the Berkeley College Republicans and Young America’s Foundation, for their attorneys’ fees. Those fees usually indicate that one side has achieved some of its goals in the case, but UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof said it was a fraction of the normal fee award and reflected an agreement that left school policies largely unchanged.
2.) Michigan ACLU seeks dismissal of charges in political free speech case
The ACLU of Michigan on Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss criminal charges against a candidate in a political free speech. Prosecutors allege that Michigan State Senate candidate, Anuja Rajendra, violated MCL 168.944, false designation of incumbency.
According to the ACLU of Michigan, political speech requires thorough First Amendment protection and statutes like MCL 168.944 could dissuade political newcomers from participating in the election process.
The ACLU of Michigan argues the charges are unconstitutional:
This statute is unconstitutional on its face because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. … The statute is also facially invalid because it is unconstitutionally vague, as it does not provide sufficient notice to a candidate of speech that is prohibited as illegal. … Finally, the statute is unconstitutional as applied because in this case it is being used to punish speech that is not clearly false.
3.) Lawsuit challenges Kansas 'ag-gag' law on free speech grounds
Animal rights and consumer groups filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Kansas this week claiming a 1990 state law banning photography or videotaping at animal agriculture facilities without the owner's consent or under false pretenses is unconstitutional.
The plaintiffs didn't say exactly why they're filing the suit against the Kansas law now. The state’s “ag-gag” law has been on the books since 1990, making it the oldest such law in the country. But it could be because there has been success in other states, both in getting similar laws passed and having them overturned in court.
Coalitions led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund have taken other states' ag-gag laws to court — including Utah and Idaho — and gotten parts of their statutes overturned. Similar lawsuits in Iowa and North Carolina are pending. Other states with ag-gag laws include Missouri, Montana and North Dakota, where it's possible similar legal complaints will be forthcoming.
