First Amendment defense. As the federal civil trial begins for organizers and participants in the deadly 2017 white nationalist rally that scarred Charlottesville, Va., defendants say they were just exercising their right to free speech.
■ BuzzFeed News: Jury selection Monday “revolved around one of the far-right’s favorite bogeymen: antifa.”
■ The AP reports the case is built on “chat room exchanges, social media postings and other communications in which the defendants use racial epithets and discuss … what weapons to bring.”
■ The plaintiffs aim to bankrupt “alt-right” leader Richard Spencer and his fellow organizers.
■ One of the plaintiffs’ lawyers promises, “This really will be the first time the entire story of Charlottesville will be told out loud.”
‘The single greatest First Amendment victory for the press in American history.’ First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams says that’s what’s on the line Friday as the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to hear appeals in two libel cases.
■ A Maine lawyer and former school committee member: “It’s not so easy to tell when unhinged ideas deserve First Amendment protection.”
On campus …
‘An impossible—and unconstitutional—choice.’ The ACLU is going to court against a new Oklahoma law limiting how race and gender subjects can be taught in classrooms, saying that it requires teachers to avoid those topics altogether “or risk losing their teaching licenses” …
■ … and that it doesn’t even define what educators can and can’t teach.
■ A national conservative group is suing a Massachusetts public school system, complaining that the creation of “racial affinity groups” for students of color and policies against biased speech violate white students’ civil rights.
■ The New York Post: A group of U.S. House Republicans wants U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to take back a memo assigning the FBI to investigate threats against local school officials—because the organization that prompted his directive has apologized.
■ A Columbia Law School prof asks a fighting-words question: “Is the public school system constitutional?”
■ A federal judge says Vermont Law School can conceal two murals some people find racially offensive.
■ A University of Texas journalism professor: “For a country that purports to value our First Amendment right to freedom of speech, it has become clear that some of our elected officials don’t understand it” …
■ … which makes this as good a point in this newsletter as any to spotlight the Free Speech Center’s tools to get students talking about the First Amendment.
‘Why filter online speech at all?’ Bloomberg offers an overview of internet companies’ approach to First Amendment freedoms.
■ Among today’s “Facebook Papers” revelations: CNN reports the company’s language blind spots around the world have allowed hate speech to flourish.
■ A Google Doc aspires to track every story unleashed by the Facebook investigative journalism consortium.
■ Legal writer Jenna Greene at Reuters: Facebook’s oversight board may be a model for content regulation that avoids First Amendment issues.
Getting the ‘f—’ out. Even though a law banning obscenities from Maine license plates took effect last week, existing plates—including one that reads simply “F—-Y0U”—won’t disappear anytime soon.
■ The Daily Show spotlights a New Jersey woman’s legal fight to decorate her home with as many anti-Biden obscenities as she pleases.
■ A North Carolina homeowner says her property owners association is unfairly threatening her with fines because she’s posted signs condemning white supremacy, honoring late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and declaring that “Capitol Police Lives Matter”—as others’ signs, including one reading “Blue Lives Matter,” remain.
