Gripes about publishers getting "private commercial benefit" from "hate speech, propaganda, and statements that seek to destabilize American democracy"; argument that "[t]he public figure doctrine emerged in an era prior to the Internet advertising model that rewards news organizations for the ongoing display of defamatory content."
Remember: Lawyers’ true superpower is the power to turn all questions into questions about procedure.
A privacy controversy in a lawsuit by privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg (formerly of EPIC, the Electronic Privacy Information Center).
The lawsuit was brought by casino developer Steve Wynn, over a press release put out by Bloom related to a sexual harassment claim that Bloom's firm brought on behalf of a dancer.
Civil liberties advocates warn that the legislation threatens activism, journalism, and satire.
"In Tinker, this Court held that "[i]t can hardly be argued that … students … shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Yet [the school district] argues that students shed much of their freedom of speech even outside the schoolhouse gate, so long as their off-campus speech is reasonably expected to reach campus."
in light of the Supreme Court's forthcoming Mahanoy and Americans For Prosperity cases.
The officers knowingly violated the First Amendment, said the court. But that doesn't matter.
A federal appellate court lets a professor's First Amendment claim go forward, in an opinion that powerfully protects faculty academic freedom more broadly.
Threatening government action to stop "snotty tweets" is not a good look.
but with "blurring images of [Susan] Muller's body and blood spatter."
That’s a clearly established constitutional mandate, the Eighth Circuit holds, so a university can’t get qualified immunity from liability in such a case.
When Amazon won't sell your book, you can head to Barnes & Noble. When government cancels your expression, there's nowhere left to go.
I'm continuing to serialize a forthcoming article of mine that discusses (among other things) such a proposed interpretation of libel law.
whether the U.S., China, Israel, or anyone else.
In context, it seems clear that the post's reference to "Chinese" is indeed a reference to the Chinese government, not to people of Chinese extraction.
Politicians on the right and the left are coming for your free speech.
The court doesn't decide whether the column was libelous, but just that the National Review wasn't liable for Steyn's post, because Steyn wasn't an employee.
A bit of background on the current law of libel; I'll have more about the implications of this in an upcoming post.
I publish something about you on Jan. 1, but I don't learn that it's false until Jan. 2. You then sue me for not taking down the post—should my liability turn on my mental state as of Jan. 1, or as of the time you sue?
"Public access [to judicial records] serves to promote trustworthiness of the judicial process, to curb judicial abuses, and to provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system, including a better perception of its fairness."
Texas state senators introduced a bill requiring the national anthem at all pro sports events.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming law review article on the duty to correct your own libelous posts, once you learn that they are libelous.
Court records are generally public records, embarrassing as they might be for the parties.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming law review article on this subject.
The awful events of January 6 accelerated trends in left-of-center circles, particularly within media and technology companies.
A Maryland court reverses a juvenile delinquency adjudication based on a supposed threat at school.
Obvious, but good to have a cite for that.
Another article that I'm serializing over the coming days.
... about there being disproportionate number of black students near the bottom of a class.
"The public has every right to understand how the public and elected officials of the Town of Wilton and the Wilton Public Schools in the exercise of their best judgment sought to resolve this case."
The plaintiff was fired and accused of sexual harassment; he won a libel lawsuit over that, and the jury awarded him $550K, but the trial court had reduced it to $100K.
Is that constitutional? Not clear.
The heavy-handed measure, a direct response to the protests provoked by the shooting of Breonna Taylor, looks like an attempt to deter constitutionally protected activity.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
