But the judge suspends his decision pending appeal, so that the appellate court has "time to consider and decide the merits of this case, absent unnecessary procedural deadlines."
To justify punishing a legislator for his speech, a FIRE brief notes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth relies on a Supreme Court precedent that is clearly inapposite.
and thus presumptively a First Amendment violation (though here the presumption was rebutted by national security interests).
The order came in a peculiar context—a civil lawsuit over the custody of a child born in Afghanistan—but its logic extends further.
The wild things are in the nightclubs.
Despite not mentioning abortion in his sermon, Clive Johnston is being charged for trying to "influence" people not to go through with the procedure.
"Plaintiff is allegedly the target of hurtful, angry, offensive, humiliating, racial, and gender-based hate made in online posts by Defendant's followers. As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by staunching Defendant's speech against Plaintiff through an injunction, doing so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment."
No pseudonymity for teacher challenging removal of pride flags from classroom, because his identity had already been disclosed through public records requests.
Silencing "Fighting Bob" details how the government targeted anti-war critics like Sen. Robert La Follette.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
The groups and their ideology are awful. But Virginia's policy violates the First Amendment. Allowing it to stand could set a dangerous precedent.
The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.
The Ivy League school released a self-critical report this week.
The judge felt there was probable cause for an arrest but he declined to go so far as to convict.
Remembering the infuriating case of United States v. “The Spirit of ’76.”
After withdrawing a summons in the face of a legal challenge, the government is seeking a grand jury subpoena.
"I don't even care if you or your mom are inside. I actually hope you are. You both deserve to die. I am going to kill you, Robyn. I don't understand why you don't get that. I will burn you. You will die."
Fortunately, an appellate court just reversed the decision.
The poster, which included a rainbow flag, counts as "instruction that includes sexuality content" and triggers an Ohio parents' rights law, the board said.
In the guise of investigating "potentially unlawful advertiser boycotts," the commission is punishing the organization for its views.
A police officer threw Renea Gamble to the ground and handcuffed her because her costume might have offended his kids.
Many other courts do generally allow pseudonymity in those particular cases, but the Seventh Circuit disagrees.
online, after they send a demand that they not be named (and declare that there has been an online-naming-related threat or incitement against them by someone else).
Could a court likewise order, say, Gmail to cut off a person's access to his Gmail account, if there's reason to think the person has misused that account for criminal purposes? Does it matter that the person isn't a party to the proceeding, and thus can't assert his free speech rights?
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks