Policing the Press: A Journalist on the Frontlines

NEW YORK – A faculty organization at Columbia University filed a motion today to dismiss a lawsuit targeting it for public comments about the university’s response to campus protests last spring. The Columbia University chapter of the American Association of University Professors (Columbia-AAUP) is represented by the ACLU and civil rights law firm Wang Hecker, LLP. Columbia-AAUP is one of 21 defendants named in a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit filed on behalf of five anonymous current and former Columbia students, who allege that Columbia-AAUP's public statements about student protests injured them by causing Columbia to move classes online, restrict access to campus, and cancel commencement. SLAPP suits weaponize the legal system to punish and silence constitutionally protected speech. They have become a common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism—including from whistleblowers, journalists, and political protestors—by threatening defendants with costly and lengthy litigation. Several states, including New York, have strong anti-SLAPP laws that protect defendants from meritless suits by forcing the plaintiff to prove “substantial basis” for their claims for the lawsuit to proceed. “This lawsuit is precisely the type of vindictive and meritless action that anti-SLAPP laws are designed to dismiss and deter,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Our client spoke publicly on matters of immense public concern, to defend students’ right to free speech and to condemn Columbia’s punitive response. To suggest that this speech somehow caused Columbia to cancel in-person classes or commencement is ludicrous. It’s obvious that the intent of this lawsuit is not to ameliorate harm, but to shame, punish, and chill our client’s speech. We will not allow our client to be bullied into silence, simply because the plaintiffs didn’t like what it had to say.” Columbia-AAUP's statements about the student protests warned that Columbia’s treatment of student protestors threatened to usher in an era “of repressed speech, political restrictions on academic inquiry, and punitive discipline against the university’s own students and faculty.” Other defendants named in the suit include students, student groups, non-profit organizations, and elected officials. “This suit strikes at the very heart of higher education,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP. “Suing a faculty organization for protected speech, especially about university affairs, targets free speech and academic freedom as such. For decades, Columbia’s campus has proudly hosted protest, dissent, and debate; it is this very history that we aim to preserve by dismissing this frivolous action. We are confident that the courts will not allow this type of abusive lawsuit to erode the culture of free expression that defines higher education.” If the ACLU prevails on the motion to dismiss, New York’s anti-SLAPP law will grant attorney's fees to our client and dismiss the lawsuit. The ACLU has also further sought sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel for bringing such a frivolous action. The brief can be viewed here.

The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A decision in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today overturned the Federal Communications Commission’s (FTC) vital net neutrality rules, ending necessary efforts to regulate broadband internet providers as utilities. “Today’s ruling to overturn net neutrality will have a devastating effect on free speech online.” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU. “Internet rights are civil rights. It is imperative that Congress act now so that everyone can have access to a free and open internet.” The decision follows the announcement by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, which ruled that the Federal Communications Commission does not have the authority to classify broadband as a “telecommunications' service.” This classification would have granted the FCC the power to enforce the net neutrality rules set forth in its April 2024 Order. Net neutrality prevents internet service providers from prioritizing data for businesses and other organizations that they favor or that pay more. The rules keep the internet open, free, and unrestricted, preventing internet service providers from becoming gatekeepers that can control and manipulate what people access on the internet.