New Jersey Mayor Bills Teen Protest Organizer for Police Overtime Pay
Plus: Congress to vote on marijuana decriminalization, tech visas are getting turned down at high rates, and more...
Plus: Congress to vote on marijuana decriminalization, tech visas are getting turned down at high rates, and more...
A thought experiment that came to my mind; I'd love to hear what others think about it.
Plus a new draft law review article on the subject, by Prof. Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law School), a leading scholar of race and the law, and me.
Across the Atlantic from Amazonia lies ... Ambazonia.
There is enough evidence that the Times knew their allegations were false (or at least were likely false) to go to the jury.
Three interesting opinions: a sound majority, a plausible concurrence, and another concurrence focused on "hate speech" that I think is unsound.
Dean Lidsky is a libel law scholar, and one of the two Reporters of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Defamation & Privacy.
The Fourth Circuit decides a case involving defendants who violently participated in two white supremacist rallies in California and in the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, but the logic applies equally to rioters of all stripes.
The new law features harsher penalties, 12-hour detentions, and other invitations to abuse government power
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
"This research will inform and fuel much needed and overdue policy change."
An interesting decision in former AP journalist Charles Ganske's lawsuit against former Member of Parliament Louise Mensch, with allegations of Russian bots and Tweeting frenzies thrown in for good measure.
The vice presidential candidate opportunistically painted the site's co-founders as villains when they were actually helping law enforcement to catch sex traffickers.
Unconstitutional, says a Massachusetts appellate court (correctly).
"CBP asks the Court to close the stable door to keep an invisible horse from bolting. But that stable door sat open for five months before CBP asked the Court to secure it. Neither the Court nor CBP know whether the horse is gone, but the possibility that it's still be there can't outweigh public's interest in open doors."
would clearly violate the Constitution, and so would giving a ticket to your lover because of the romantic relationship.
The First Amendment protects "'anti-Israeli, anti-Zionist, [and] antisemitic" speech, the court correctly observes.
threatens to kick students out of class for "othering." Fortunately, the university has stepped in and rejected this position.
mentioning the name of an officer against whom publicly available complaints -- the contents of which matches the contents of the allegedly libelous post -- were filed.
The case was filed against the Maricopa County Community College District, over Prof. Nicholas Damask's World Politics class.
Bonus: We learn that calling a doctor "a real tool" isn't libelous, either.
in a case stemming from the Darren Wilson prosecution.
including on their own non-government-run reelection campaign pages. A federal court has just struck that down.
They can be banned, so long as the ban is content-neutral, and so long as people remain free to generally march through the neighborhood (as opposed to protesting right outside the target's home).
An excellent piece by Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy, one of the nation's leading scholars of race, law, and society.
Even as Americans rely on tech more than ever, our early-pandemic truce with the industry is officially over.
They are still protected by the First Amendment.
The Eleventh Circuit threw out a lawsuit brought by former NRA President Marion Hammer.
"I’m a vegetarian and I love dogs, like Hitler. But the only thing I have in common with Hitler are the good bits!"
"Judges often do not respond well to unreasonable efforts to keep as much out of the public record as possible. At least not this judge."
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the order (which had required defendant to stay 300 feet away from the plaintiff).
Jonathan Rauch explains the difference between canceling and criticism
Plus: the latest unemployment numbers, Biden apologizes for comment on diversity, Ohio governor gets flip-flopping COVID-19 results, and more…
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