Free Speech Tuesday: a triplet of stories about one of the most important rights we have: social media, CU's faculty/students, and a SLAPP to the face.
Social media guidance for legislators
In the first of today's offerings on free speech, I present you a Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition article on how the Office of Legislative Legal Services (the official lawyer for the legislative branch and the legislators themselves) updated its recommendations to legislators in light of a recent US Supreme Court ruling on goverrnment actors and social media.
The article is linked first below and the US Supreme Court ruling below it.
CFOIC did a capable job of summarizing the ruling, quoting their article:
"In Lindke, the Supreme Court unanimously 'recognized that public officials have a First Amendment right to speak as private individuals if the speech does not constitute state action by the official,' the OLLS memo says."
A ruling that I think probably most of us could get on board with. The devil is where he's always hiding: in those pesky in-between cases.
As such, the legislators' lawyers are recommending safety, safety here being "do nothing to prevent anyone from interacting" or "shut it down and let no one interact". That along with a clear disclaimer on their personal social media saying that it's personal and not a government account.
Both seem reasonable.
In my own experience, I have found that the people I often hector (Weiser and Polis) have the policy on their personal and official pages that they don't restrict or block.
Some in the media (Kyle Clark I'm looking in your direction) do, but they of course are not government employees (though you could make the case that they do in-kind contributions to the Democrats' governing efforts...)
https://coloradofoic.org/updated-social-media-guidance-for-colorado-legislators-urges-risk-management-approach-after-scotus-ruling/
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
Restrictions on faculty and student speech at CU?
In today's second free speech offering, I present the CPR article below. In an interesting juxtaposition to the first post today, the one where the attorney for the legislative branch recommended a clear disclaimer on private-account social media posts for legislators, some faculty and students are bristling at CU's new policy which calls for just such a disclaimer.
Quoting with link intact should you want to follow back:
"Currently, the university’s policy states that when university faculty speak or write in their personal capacities, not as part of their university employment, they must make every effort to indicate that their expression is their own and doesn’t represent the opinion or position of the university. The proposed amendment addresses communication on digital spaces controlled by campuses."
I'll leave it to you to read up on their specific statements by opponents (including the ACLU and CU"s Law School) in the article, but I have to be honest in saying that I don't share the concern here.
I don't think putting a disclaimer on the speech of an individual, when not speaking for CU is a bridge too far. Having said that, I do think I agree with one comment made.
Quoting again, "'They worried about vagueness, they worried about ambiguity, they worried about the scope of the proposed changes,' he [Alastair Norcross, chair of the Faculty Council] said."
Expectations in nearly any field in life are critical. They need to be clear and as precise as possible. That, and not a disclaimer itself, is not too much to ask for.
https://www.cpr.org/2024/09/13/faculty-students-push-back-amendment-free-speech-university-of-colorado/
No, not that kind of slap. This kind has two p's: anti-SLAPP law.
In the third installment today, I put up another Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC) article for your consideration. This time it's about a case coming before the CO Supreme Court relating to our anti-SLAPP law.
Let's back up. What is CO's anti-SLAPP law? The bill itself is linked below and I like the summary provided by the bill's fiscal note (which you'll see in screenshot 1).
In particular, I like the list of exceptions therein. That', in fact, is what the CFOIC article pertains to.
In between bouts of rubberstamping the state's efforts to neuter and disable TABOR (see my open letter to the court linked second below), the CO Supreme Court takes up its intended role as interpreter of statute, and that's what the case outlined in the CFOIC article is all about.
To wit, the following quote from CFOIC (with link intact so you can follow back if you want):
"In a defamation case brought by a veterinary clinic, the Court of Appeals ruled last year that the anti-SLAPP law does not protect online criticisms “made primarily for the purpose of airing a private dispute.” The “vast majority” of statements made about the Tender Care Veterinary Center in Falcon did not involve “a ‘public issue” or an “issue of public interest,” a three-judge appellate panel determined, affirming a district court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case."
Put in plainer language, the anti-SLAPP law makes it faster and easier to dismiss civil actions due to a claim that the offending speech represented constitutionally-protected free speech. In this case the appellate court is saying that a civil suit for defamation should NOT get the "quickie" dismissal because comments made online about the vet clinic mentioned do not fit the criteria of the bill (with the defendants, of course, disagreeing and thus taking it to the CO Supreme Court).
I'll leave it to you to read up on the details, but apparently the anti-SLAPP law has been aching for clarification by the high court for a while now with some contradictory rulings coming from various courts.
It will be interesting to see how this one comes out. I'll keep my eyes and ears open, but if this issue is a passion, the best way to make sure you find out would be (in my opinion) to give CFOIC a follow.
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/hb19-1324
https://pagetwo.completecolorado.com/2021/06/09/gaines-an-open-letter-to-the-colorado-supreme-court/
https://coloradofoic.org/colorado-supreme-court-will-examine-public-interest-parameters-of-anti-slapp-law/