VICTORY! Federal district court dismisses class-action suit against pollster J. Ann Selzer A federal district court today dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit against renowned Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, holding that the First Amendment bars the claims against her related to her October 2024 general election poll. As the court explained, “there is no free pass around the First Amendment.” The lawsuit, brought by a subscriber to The Des Moines Register and styled as a class action, stemmed from a poll Selzer published before the 2024 presidential election that predicted Vice President Kamala Harris leading by three points in Iowa. The suit asserted claims, including under Iowa’s Consumer Fraud Act, alleging that Selzer’s poll, which missed the final result by a wide margin, constituted “fake news” and “fraud.” Selzer, represented pro bono by FIRE, pushed back. FIRE explained that commentary about a political election is core protected speech. “Fake news” is a political buzzword, not a legal cause of action. And “fraud” is a defined legal concept: intentionally lying to convince someone to part with something of value. The court explained, “polls are a mere snapshot of a dynamic and changing electorate” and “the results of an opinion poll are not an actionable false representation merely because the anticipated results differ from what eventually occurred.” As the Supreme Court has said, a party cannot evade First Amendment scrutiny “simply labeling an action one for fraud.” The court held the plaintiff had “no factual allegations” to support his fraud claim, instead “invok[ing] mere buzzwords and speculation” to support his claims. And not only did the court find the First Amendment barred the claims, it similarly held each claim defective under Iowa law even without the First Amendment’s protection. Selzer is pleased with the result: “I am pleased to see this lawsuit has been dismissed. The First Amendment’s protection for free speech and a free press held strong. I know that I did nothing wrong and I am glad the court also concluded that there was never a valid legal claim.” FIRE’s Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere, who led Selzer’s defense, responded to the ruling: “This decision shows where petty politics ends and the rule of law begins. The court’s strongly worded opinion confirms that a legal claim cannot be concocted with political slogans and partisan hyperbole, and that there is no hiding from the First Amendment. This is a good day for freedom of speech.” This lawsuit was a copycat of a still-pending suit filed by President Donald Trump against Selzer in December 2024 in which FIRE also represents her. FIRE Supervising Senior Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick remarked, "President Trump's suit makes the same frivolous arguments against the same defendants. We are confident it will meet the same fate."

My latest, including my full talk at @UVU, where Charlie Kirk was murdered just weeks prior. I spoke about why, in a free country, we should never feel afraid to speak—esp on a college campus—or to challenge the gov't. By threatening or punishing dissent we risk becoming a nation just like every other country in the world throughout history. America's commitment to free speech is at the heart of what makes it exceptional, and to forget that is to abandon our important historical and global role.

Censorship like this should have no place at public universities. Join FIRE in telling the University of Kentucky to reinstate Professor Woodcock and reaffirm its commitment to free expression.👇 thefire.org/get-involved/tak…

Did Indiana University’s censorship spook you? The University of Central Oklahoma just took the horror show to the next level. @UCOBronchos banned its 122-year-old student paper, The Vista, from printing, seized its racks, and retaliated against editors for reporting the news.

After Charlie Kirk’s murder at Utah Valley University, FIRE’s @glukianoff went to the shocked campus with a powerful message for the UVU community and America: In the face of political violence, free speech is the only way forward.