Laura Loomer pushes Meta to put her on advisory board to prove it’s ‘serious about ending censorship’

In Iowa, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has taken on the defense of veteran pollster J. Ann Selzer. This legal defense comes as a response to a lawsuit filed by President-elect Donald Trump, which challenges Selzer's credibility regarding her polling predictions prior to the 2024 presidential election. Selzer's poll showed Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump by three points, a forecast that ultimately proved incorrect. Trump's lawsuit claims that Selzer's work constitutes 'deceptive polls' and alleges that such predictions could 'poison the electorate.' In light of these legal challenges, FIRE's Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere argued that punishing individuals for their political predictions undermines First Amendment rights. They believe that freedom of expression — especially concerning political matters — ought to be protected. Selzer asserted that her career is dedicated to understanding the political landscape of Iowa and that she should not be diverted by what she describes as a vengeful legal action spurred by someone with significant power and resources. The case against Selzer raises larger concerns about the intersections of polling, predictions, and free speech rights in the United States. Trump’s accusations suggest a growing tension between public figures and the media's role in political forecasting. The lawsuit could have chilling effects on the industry, as pollsters may fear legal ramifications over predictions that do not materialize. Historically, polling has always contained a level of uncertainty, making it subject to speculation and debate. However, Trump argues that such inaccuracies should be legally accountable, deviating from traditional understandings of forecasts as mere predictions. Legal analysts have described the claims in Trump’s lawsuit as frivolous, emphasizing that consumer fraud laws are designed to prevent actual deception in transactions rather than penalizing individuals or organizations for their inaccurate predictions. This notion is critical to understanding how the legal system interprets freedom of speech in scenarios involving political expression. As such, Selzer's defense hinges on the constitutionality of Trump’s lawsuit, arguing that her polling predictions constitute protected speech under the First Amendment. The implications of Trump's lawsuit extend beyond Selzer’s professional reputation; they question the integrity of polling as a whole in the political discourse of America. If the lawsuit is successful, it could create a precedent where pollsters might face harassment and legal action for predictive errors. FIRE’s stance reinforces the idea that political expression must remain free from punitive measures. The situation has sparked a public dialogue on the boundaries of free speech, the role of polling in elections, and the potential impacts of powerful entities seeking to silence dissenting voices in political dialogue.