This Tennessee Man Spent 37 Days in Jail for Sharing an Anti-Trump Meme. He Says the Cops Should Pay for That.
Larry Bushart's lawyers argue that his arrest for constitutionally protected speech violated the First and Fourth amendments.
Larry Bushart's lawyers argue that his arrest for constitutionally protected speech violated the First and Fourth amendments.
The administration doesn't want to win these cases. It wants to intimidate Americans who oppose its immigration policies.
(Not the Chinese Boy George.)
A conservative federal judge questions the reach of free speech.
This is Priscilla Villarreal’s second trip to the Supreme Court, which last year revived her First Amendment lawsuit.
"There was also evidence presented regarding Liza's alleged delusional thinking and hallucinations. Eli testified that Liza told him Kenneth was his physical father, but actor Chris Hemsworth was his spiritual father. Eli also testified that for years Liza had talked about having another daughter someday, whom she would name Phoebe, and Hemsworth would be the father. Brigham testified that Liza told him she believed Hemsworth was the children's father." Plus unschooling, unbathing, and more.
"[The coach's alleged statement] can reasonably be inferred as ... defamatory ... about Clary—that Clary himself was greedy and only interested in money and, as a result, abandoned [his] team and refused to play for Penn State."
The court concluded that a retraction likely wouldn't breach any publication contract, and that under the circumstances a temporary restraining order would be especially unjustified given the publisher's First Amendment rights.
Which is what progressive fans of antitrust want, no?
The move is bad for free speech and bad for American businesses that depend on tourism.
Rev. Stephen Josoma of St. Susanna Parish defended the message against the Trump administration's immigration enforcement.
Sarah McLaughlin reveals how foreign governments pressure American universities through speech codes and satellite campuses, and examines the broader threat international authoritarianism poses to free expression.
But there's a silver lining—sort of.
So holds a Fifth Circuit panel, over a dissent. Note that part of the majority's rationale is that the photo would only violate the statute if the prosecution can show that defendant intended to invade privacy in a way "highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities."
From the "Gitlow v. New York at 100" symposium, held this year at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law.
The document remains remarkably resilient, even as Republicans and Democrats keep launching assaults on liberty.
In her 1962 essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," Rand foresaw how government officials would seek to silence people they don't like.
One claim is that CMU's Chief Diversity Officer illegally recorded meeting with student and the accused professor—and then apparently "asserted her Fifth Amendment rights when ... asked her if she did so or if she had a pattern or practice of recording student meetings, without their consent, in the scope of her duties."
From the "Gitlow v. New York at 100" symposium, held this year at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; other papers from that symposium will be published shortly.
"[Appellants'] homemade signs talked about May being mental health awareness month, one referenced the movie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and included a photograph of actor Jack Nicholson, one mentioned perimenopause and empty nest syndrome, one said '[h]ere comes da judge' around the time that Appellee had a divorce hearing .... Another sign included the language '[h]ere's looking at you kid' and contained a photo of Humphrey Bogart."
My cohost Jane Bambauer and I are joined by Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky (Florida), who is also a co-reporter for the American Law Institute's Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation and Privacy.
From the "Gitlow v. New York at 100" symposium, held this year at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; other papers from that symposium will be published shortly.
From the "Gitlow v. New York at 100" symposium, held this year at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; other papers from that symposium will be published here in the coming weeks.
Such speech by the National Institute of Family & Life Advocates in this case, the court concluded, was noncommercial speech that was subject to broad First Amendment protection, rather than less protected "commercial speech."
From the "Gitlow v. New York at 100" symposium, held this year at the Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law; other papers from that symposium will be published here in the coming weeks.
KOSA is back, along with more than a dozen other bills that will erode free speech and privacy in the name of protecting kids.
even if it leads people "to visit plaintiffs’ home 'on a daily basis' asking to see it and claiming they learned it was for sale through the Buying Beverly Hills advertisement."
Nobody expects China or Iran to protect privacy. But as seen in the European debate over chat control, even nominally free countries are becoming intrusive when it comes to the digital world.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks