By Dave Stafford
A political organization that argued Indiana’s ban on telephone robocalls disfavored political speech and was content discrimination got a terse reply from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday.
“We don’t get it,” Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in Patriotic Veterans, Inc. v. Greg Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, 16-2059. “Nothing in the statute … disfavors political speech. The statute as a whole disfavors cold calls (that is, calls to strangers), but if a recipient has authorized robocalls then the nature of the message is irrelevant.”
Bans on computer-assisted robocalls that deliver recorded messages have been sustained in two circuits. But Patriotic Veterans sued to block I.C. §24-5-14-5 after South Carolina’s law was overturned and after the Supreme Court of the United States struck down an Arizona town ordinance regulating the content of signs in Reed v. Gilbert, 135 S. Ct 2218 (2015).
By Dave Stafford
Daily Caller: High Court Should Hear First Amendment Case Against Bullying Bureaucrats (In the News)
By Wen Fa
For most of his career, Nebraska resident Bob Bennie happily conducted his business as a successful financial advisor without government harassment.
But that changed after he was quoted in a newspaper making controversial remarks about President Obama.
Suddenly, Bennie had a bullseye painted on his back by regulators who oversee his industry. The regulators relentlessly harassed Bennie’s employer until Bennie’s managers fired him from his job.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to hear Bennie’s civil rights lawsuit against these vengeful bureaucrats. Everyone who values free speech should hope the justices take his case and make it clear that government can’t treat the exercise of First Amendment freedom as a punishable offense…
The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider Bennie’s case on January 6. Eight states, nine law professors, and four free-speech advocacy groups have joined Bennie in urging the justices to grant review.
Filed Under: In the News
By Mark Hrywna
California Gov. Jerry Brown officially nominated Congressman Xavier Becerra to replace Attorney General Kamala Harris…
Becerra isn’t expected to stray far from Harris’ perspective on charity regulation. The California Attorney General’s Office has been embroiled in litigation regarding its regulations to require filing donor information for a number of years…
The Center for Competitive Politics, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Thomas More Law Center, and Citizens United Foundation all have challenged the regulations by state charity officials in California and New York in court.
During a hearing in May on a bill that would prohibit the Treasury Secretary from requiring that the identity of contributors to nonprofits be included in annual returns (H.R. 5053), Becerra warned that the legislation could create a loophole for foreign governments or others to use their money to influence government without disclosure.
Colloton Coca-Cola v. Purdy Cross v. Mokwa MCCL v. Kelley Republican Party v. White Stahl v City of St. Louis Wersal v. Sexton Other ACLU v. Alvarez (Sykes) B.H. v Easton (Hardiman) Ezell v. City of Chicago (Sykes) Lavin I and V (Kethledge) Lavin v. Husted (Kethledge) League of Women Voters v. Quinn (Sykes) Lodge […]
Filed Under: Uncategorized