The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) opened an investigation into Media Matters for America, a progressive nonprofit dedicated to "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media," for its role in an advertising boycott of X in May. On Monday, the FTC expanded the investigation to major advertisers, including Omnicron Group and the Interpublic Group, both of which are founding members of the World Federation of Advertisers (WFA). The FTC's investigation follows not only Elon Musk's intimate involvement with the Trump administration but also lawsuits filed by X Corp. against Media Matters and the WFA.
In November 2023, X Corp. filed a lawsuit against Media Matters in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas accusing the nonprofit of making false and malicious statements disparaging the quality of X, which led to the subsequent loss of advertising contracts. In its complaint, X Corp. accuses Media Matters of publicly smearing the company by "knowingly and maliciously manufactur[ing] side-by-side images [of] advertisers' posts…beside Neo-Nazi and white-nationalist fringe content." X Corp. cites "99% of [its] measured ad placement in 2023 [appearing] adjacent to content scoring above the Global Alliance for Responsible Media's [GARM] brand safety floor" as contradicting Media Matter's portrayal of the platform.
X Corp. filed an antitrust lawsuit against GARM's parent organization, the WFA, in August 2024. After Musk acquired Twitter (now X) in November 2022, members contacted GARM for advice on whether to continue advertising on the platform. At this time, the suit alleges, GARM "conveyed to its members its concerns about Twitter's compliance with GARM's standards"—concerns exacerbated by critical coverage from progressive nonprofits like Media Matters—prompting a boycott that caused revenues to dip 80 percent below forecasts. X Corp. alleges that WFA members violated the Sherman Antitrust Act's prohibition of conspiracies in restraint of trade by "withholding purchases of digital advertising from Twitter."
Supreme Court precedent strongly suggests this allegation is meritless.
Vikram David Amar and Ashutosh Bhagwat, both professors at the University of California, Davis School of Law, cite NAACP v. Claiborne (1982) as evidence that the First Amendment applies to politically motivated boycotts. Amar and Bhagwat explain that, in Claiborne, "the Court insulated the boycotters from liability under state laws seeking to protect fair economic competition and held that 'the nonviolent elements of [the boycotters'] activities [were] entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.'"
Amar and Bhagwat also invoke 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023), where the Court ruled that "a seller of inherently expressive services…can't be compelled [by a consumer] to provide speech." It stands to reason that consumers (like advertisers) may not be forced to buy expressive services they disagree with. Forcing companies to pay for speech with which they disagree is unconstitutional.
The FTC's advertising boycott investigation is a waste of the commission's time and taxpayers' money because, even if advocacy groups and advertisers colluded to boycott X, the First Amendment forecloses antitrust prosecution given the expressive nature of the X platform and its advertising service.
The post The FTC Risks Chilling Speech With Its Advertising Boycott Investigation appeared first on Reason.com.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

4 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump touts ruling on National Guard in LA

President Trump touted a 'big win' Friday morning in his fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) over control of the state's National Guard, which Trump federalized earlier this month in response to protests against his immigration raids. A federal appeals court ruled late Thursday the president could retain control of the state's National Guard for the time being. 'BIG WIN in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the President's core power to call in the National Guard,' Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 'The Judges obviously realized that Gavin Newscum is incompetent and ill prepared, but this is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done,' he added. Newsom argued Trump's decision to federalize soldiers without consulting him was illegal and asked the courts for an emergency order to block the move. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Clinton appointee, initially ruled in California's favor, but the emergency injunction was overturned by the Ninth Circuit on June 13. The three-judge panel unanimously extended its pause in an unsigned, 38-page decision released Thursday night. 'We emphasize, however, that our decision addresses only the facts before us. And although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' the appeals panel wrote. The panel said it disagreed with the administration that Trump's decision isn't reviewable by the courts, but the judges acknowledged they must be 'highly deferential.' 'Affording the President that deference, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority,' the opinion reads. Responding to the Thursday night ruling, Newsom said 'This fight doesn't end here' in a post on X. 'The court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court. The President is not a king and is not above the law,' he wrote. 'We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of U.S. military soldiers against citizens,' he added. Though the 9th Circuit's decision marks a victory for Trump in the legal battle, it may be short-lived. Breyer is set to hold a hearing Friday on whether to issue an indefinite injunction. Breyer, in his initial ruling, ruled the Guard deployment was illegal and both violated the Tenth Amendment, which defines power between federal and state governments, and exceeded Trump's statutory authority. 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' he wrote. 'Individuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone.' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) said the president was using soldiers as 'props' in a city where they are not needed. 'We need to remember who makes up the National Guard and the Marines — young men and women, pulled from their homes, families, and education, to do NOTHING,' she wrote in a Friday post on X.

Los Angeles Times

7 hours ago

• Los Angeles Times

The Tony-winning revival of ‘Parade' turns a miscarriage of justice into gripping musical drama

Leo Frank, the superintendent of a pencil factory in Georgia, was accused of murdering a young employee, 13-year-old Mary Phagan. His 1913 trial led to his conviction despite shoddy evidence and the manipulations of an ambitious prosecuting attorney, who shamelessly preyed on the prejudices of the jury. After a series of failed appeals, Frank's sentence was commuted by the governor, but he was kidnapped and lynched by a mob enraged that his death sentence wasn't being imposed. The story garnered national attention and threw a spotlight on the fault lines of our criminal justice system. This dark chapter in American history might not seem suitable for musical treatment. Docudrama would be the safer way to go, given the gravity of the material. But playwright Alfred Uhry and composer and lyricist Jason Robert Brown had a vision of what they could uniquely bring to the retelling of Frank's story. Their 1998 musical was a critical hit but a difficult sell. More admired than beloved, the show has extended an open challenge to theater artists drawn to the sophisticated majesty of Brown's Tony-winning score but daunted by the expansive scope of Uhry's Tony-winning book. Director Michael Arden has answered the call in his Tony-winning revival, which has arrived at the Ahmanson Theatre in sharp form. The production, which launched at New York City Center before transferring to Broadway, proved that a succès d'estime could also be an emotionally stirring hit. 'Parade' covers a lot of cultural, historical, and political ground. The trial, prefaced by a Civil War snapshot that sets the action in the proper context, takes up much of the first act. But the musical also tells the story of a marriage that grows in depth as external reality becomes more treacherous. It's a lot to sort through, but Arden, working hand in hand with scenic designer Dane Laffrey, has conceptualized the staging in a neo-Brechtian fashion that allows the historical background to be seamlessly transmitted. Sven Ortel's projections smoothly integrate the necessary information, allowing the focus to be on the human figures caught in the snares of American bigotry and barbarism. The 2007 Donmar Warehouse revival, directed by Rob Ashford, came to the Mark Taper Forum in 2009 with the promise that it had finally figured out the musical. The production was scaled down, but the full potency of 'Parade' wasn't released. An earnest layer of 'importance' clouded the audience's emotional connection to the characters, even if the Taper was a more hospitable space for this dramatic musical than the Ahmanson. Arden's production, at once intimate and epic, comes through beautifully nonetheless on the larger stage. 'Parade,' which delves into antisemitism, systemic bias in our judicial system and the power of a wily demagogue to stoke atavistic hatred for self-gain, has a disconcerting timeliness. But the production — momentous in its subject matter, human in its theatrical style — lets the contemporary parallels speak for themselves. Ben Platt, who played Leo, and Micaela Diamond, who played Leo's wife, Lucille, made this Broadway revival sing in the most personally textured terms. For the tour, these roles are taken over by Max Chernin and Talia Suskauer. Both are excellent, if less radiantly idiosyncratic. The modesty of their portrayals, however, subtly draws us in. Chernin's Leo is a cerebral, Ivy League-educated New Yorker lost in the minutiae of his factory responsibilities. A numbers man more than a people person, he's a fish out of water in Atlanta, as he spells out in the song 'How Can I Call This Home?' Platt played up the comedy of the quintessential Jewish outsider in a land of Confederate memorials and drawling manners. Chernin, more reserved in his manner, seethes with futile terror. The withholding nature of Chernin's Leo poses some theatrical risks but goes a long way toward explaining how the character's otherness could be turned against him in such a malignant way. His Leo makes little effort to fit in, and he's resented all the more for his lofty detachment. It takes some time for Suskauer's Lucille to come into her own, both as a wife and a theatrical character. It isn't until the second half that, confronting the imminent death of her husband, she asserts herself and rises in stature in both Leo's eyes and audience's. But a glimmer of this potential comes out in the first act when Lucille sings with plaintive conviction 'You Don't Know This Man,' one of the standout numbers in a score distinguished less by individual tunes than by the ingenious deployment of an array of musical styles (from military beats to folk ballads and from hymns to jazz) to tell the story from different points of view. 'This Is Not Over Yet' raises hope that Leo and Lucille will find a way to overcome the injustice that has engulfed them. History can't be revised, but where there's a song there's always a chance in the theater. Reality, however, painfully darkens in the poignant duet 'All the Wasted Time,' which Lucille and Leo sing from his prison cell — a seized moment of marital bliss from a husband and wife who, as the last hour approaches, have finally become equal partners. Ramone Nelson, who plays Jim Conley, a Black worker at the factory who is suborned to testify against Leo, delivers the rousing 'Blues: Feel The Rain Fall,' a chain gang number that electrifies the house despite the defiance of a man who, having known little justice, has no interest in defending it. Conley has been sought out by Governor Slaton (a gently authoritative Chris Shyer), who has reopened the investigation at Lucille's urging only to uncover contradictions and inconsistencies in the case. He's one of the more noble figures, however reluctant, married to a woman (a vivid Alison Ewing) who won't let him betray his integrity, even if it's too little, too late. Hugh Dorsey (Andrew Samonsky), the prosecuting attorney preoccupied with his future, has no regrets after railroading Leo in a politicized trial that will cost him his life. Dorsey is one of the chief villains of the musical, but Samonsky resists melodrama to find a credible psychological throughline for a man who has staked his career on the ends justifying the means. Britt Craig (Michael Tacconi), a down-on-his-luck reporter who takes delight in demonizing Leo in the press, dances on his desk when he's landed another slanderous scoop. But even he's more pathetic than hateful. One sign of the production's Brechtian nature is the way the structural forces at work in society are revealed to be more culpable than any individual character. The press, like the government and the judiciary, is part of a system that's poisoned from within. The harking back to the Civil War isn't in vain. 'Parade' understands that America's original sin — slavery and the economic apparatus that sanctioned the dehumanization of groups deemed as 'other' — can't be divorced from Leo's story. The musical never loses sight of poor Mary Phagan (Olivia Goosman), a flighty underage girl who didn't deserve to be savagely killed at work. It's exceedingly unlikely that Leo had anything to do with her murder, but the show doesn't efface her tragedy, even as it reckons with the gravity of Leo's. When Chernin's Leo raises his voice in Jewish prayer before he is hanged, the memory of a man whose life was wantonly destroyed is momentarily restored. His lynching can't be undone, but the dignity of his name can be redeemed and our collective sins can be called to account in a gripping musical that hasn't so much been revived as reborn.

Indianapolis Star

8 hours ago

• Indianapolis Star

Phishing scam uses public's right to information to target state and local governments

Hoosiers can request a broad range of information from their local and state governments, such as police reports, contracts, policies and email communications. A recent phishing attack is twisting that right to information into a means to scam state and local government workers. Employees have reported that a recent surge of emails are posing as public records requests and encouraging records to be uploaded to a hyperlink. The Indiana Office of Technology is aware of the emails and has found them to be fraudulent, according to one of its email newsletters. Spokesperson Aliya Wishner said the city of Indianapolis' information services agency is aware of the phishing scam. The city uses a software system to fulfill records requests, not through email. One of the phishing emails obtained by IndyStar was sent from the domain "@recordsretrievalsolutions" and sought five years of information about an agency's purchase orders. Indiana's technology office said employees should be cautious with any emails from that domain and any contacts from Records Retrieval Solutions. The office said the scammers are pretending to be the Florida-based company. In light of the phishing scam, the office recommends that workers question whether a records requests is legitimate. Guidance includes contacting the sender to discuss the request, verifying the entity that's making the request, and searching the email text for red flags like hyperlinks. Under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act, members of the public have the right to request a wide swath of information held by government agencies. Some information may be withheld or redacted for legal or investigation reasons. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.