Maine bars state legislator from voting or speaking in trans athlete row, FIRE tells NIH not to pull funding based on Rankings, Victories in the 9th Circuit & TN, & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (3/16/25)
Stories of the week
Given how much attention the indeed very troubling case of Mahmoud Khalil has garnered, I wanted to focus this weekend’s update in particular on the many other big free speech cases that may have been overlooked. If you want my take on the Khalil case, check out
's and my piece in ERI from earlier this week linked below.Maine rep banned for posting about trans athlete slams state’s woke leaders, sues over free speech violation (NY Post) by
The Democratic House speaker and majority leader in Maine quickly caught wind of the post and demanded she take it down.
When she refused, they introduced a motion to censure her, citing the fact that the photographed individual is a minor.
The resolution, which bars her from speaking on the House floor or voting on legislation until she apologizes, passed along partisan lines in a 75-70 vote.
“This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney
, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”
“We are thrilled that Alexis will no longer have to stand trial because government officials disapproved of her decorative skeletons,” said FIRE attorney Colin McDonell. “Punishing Alexis for her choice of expressing holiday cheer would have been a bone-chilling restriction on her First Amendment rights.”
While the rankings assess speech codes that apply to students, the rankings do not currently assess policies pertaining to the academic freedom rights and research conduct of professors, who are the primary recipients of NIH grants. Nor do the rankings assess faculty sentiment about their campus climates. It would be a mistake to use the rankings beyond their intended purpose — and, if the rankings were used to deny funding for important research that would in fact be properly conducted, that mistake would be extremely costly.
An Unsettling Approach to Academic Freedom (Quillette) by Andy Lamey
The AAUP’s shift is in part a response to Donald Trump and the illiberal forces he’s energised, representatives of which have used anti-DEI arguments to justify their own assault on the independence of American universities. There is no question that Trumpism and its adjacent forces pose a major threat to academic freedom. But not only has the AAUP responded to that threat by diluting its own commitment to this ideal; as discussed in more detail below, its representatives have made cranky and intolerant remarks about other mainstream academic-freedom organisations that the AAUP should be embracing as allies.
This week in FIRE’s blog
UPDATE: Another federal appeals court backs academic free speech for public employees by Josh Bleisch
Feds to Columbia: ‘You want $400 million in contracts back? Do this (or else)’ by Tyler Coward
A picture is worth a thousand words — unless a college district bans it by Ross Marchand
Navigating the Kafkaesque nightmare of Columbia's Office of Institutional Equity by Amanda Nordstrom
While Columbia’s OIE is charged with addressing claims of unlawful discrimination and harassment, it cannot do so by employing an overly broad definition of harassment that stretches the meaning beyond recognition. Yet the OIE has done exactly that in interpreting Title VI harassment to include protected criticism of Israel, suppressing political activism under the guise of maintaining a “safe” environment by defining speech against another country as possible discriminatory harassment if “directed at or infused with discriminatory comments about persons from, or associated with, that country.”
Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech
Free speech advocates rally to support FIRE’s federal appeal to defend advocacy in public parks
The government wants to financially bludgeon those seeking to defend constitutional rights by (ERI’s own ‘London Calling’ contributor) Ronnie London
FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil
This week in ERI
Five things to remember as the Mahmoud Khalil case develops by me & Robert Shibley
This week on
This week on
, host is joined by FIRE Lead Counsel on Tech Policy , Cato Senior Fellow in Technology Policy , and R Street Resident Senior Fellow in Technology and Innovation for a “tech policy bonanza!” FCC, FTC, and AI regulations, oh my!
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has once again preliminarily enjoined enforcement of California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code Act (CAADCA). The law, based on a UK statute, purports to ensure online products children are likely to access are designed to recognize their distinct needs, while providing them online privacy protection. The court initially found the law likely to violate the First Amendment and preliminarily enjoined it in September 2023, but the Ninth Circuit remanded for further review after upholding the injunction only in part. It upheld the injunction against the Act’s central provision that required online businesses and services to submit Digital Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) to the state to assess whether any products, services, or features might be detrimental to children and to set forth timed plans to mitigate any such risks. But it remanded the rest of the law for further review. Now, on NetChoice’s amended complaint and renewed preliminary injunction motion, the district court enjoined California from enforcing the law. It held the CAADDA’s central coverage definition (encompassing websites “likely to be accessed by children”) was content-based in every application and thus subject to strict scrutiny, which the law’s regulatory provisions, collectively, are likely to fail. And, reviewing the provisions individually, it held they also failed First Amendment scrutiny, were unconstitutionally vague, or both. It therefore enjoined requirements that online businesses enforce their published content policies and community standards (subject to state oversight), and that they estimate the age of child users with a reasonable level of certainty appropriate to the risks, or apply to all customers the privacy and data protections afforded to children. It also enjoined prohibitions against the use of information the business knows, or has reason to know, is materially detrimental to the physical health, mental health, or well-being of children, and against the use “dark patterns” in any way the business knows, or has reason to know, is materially detrimental to the physical health, mental health, or well-being of children. The court further held the CAADDA failed overall because, with the DPIA requirement enjoined, the remaining provisions were not severable. However, the court rejected preemption challenges based on federal law, including Section 230, the Child Online Privacy Protection Act, and the dormant Commerce Clause. NetChoice is represented jointly by a team from the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP (including Ambika Kumar, David Gossett, and Adam Sieff) and FIRE Chief Counsel Robert Corn-Revere.
International free speech stories of the week
Indonesian TikToker jailed for blasphemy for telling Jesus to get a haircut (CNN) by Jack Guy
Greek Politician Destroys Art in National Gallery, Claiming ‘Blasphemy’ (ArtNet) by Jo Lawson-Tancred
Pre-order of the week
“The Canceling of the American Mind” paperback is due out April 29. Secure your copy today!
Increasingly "progressives" and "conservatives" , Democrats and Republicans are becoming Tweedledee and Tweedledum in an unrelenting battle. The Stazi would be impressed and Torquemada would give both his blessing. We have come to a sorry state of affairs.
Your headline is incorrect. The gagged legislator in Maine is a state rep, not a congresswoman.