Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Blackmail Statute as Overbroad
It's possible that a narrower statute with a "lack of nexus" requirement (see below) might be constitutional, though the majority doesn't discuss that.
It's possible that a narrower statute with a "lack of nexus" requirement (see below) might be constitutional, though the majority doesn't discuss that.
"The idea that wrongheaded, dangerous, heretical, and blasphemous ideas should be not only allowed but protected is preposterous," says Rauch. And yet, it's "the single most successful social principle ever invented."
The president’s heavy-handed response to protests against police brutality belies his promise of "law and order."
When can libel plaintiffs, suing over allegedly false claims of sexual misconduct, sue pseudonymously? When can defendants defend pseudonymously?
The Fifth Column podcaster is done with cancel culture, identity politics, and political orthodoxy.
Plus: How H-1B visa restrictions cost U.S. jobs, a woman sues the British health service over hormone blockers, and more...
Defendant, a local mayor and sheriff's deputy, tweeted about Castile's girlfriend (who had gotten a settlement from local government entities), "She needs to come off County and State Aid now that she has some cash. It'll be gone in 6 months on crack cocaine."
So a Second Circuit panel just held.
When a university president threatens a professor with consequences for writing an article, free expression loses out.
"The record shows nothing more than odious expressions of frustration."
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sued whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time; now there's a second settlement.
The Reason Roundtable weighs in on the latest coronavirus policy debate.
even if there's nothing at all false in the call.
The professor, the chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
... and, fortunately for me, not playing chess.
holds the Second Circuit in a case rejecting a libel lawsuit over a blog post headline.
I was one of the 153 signers and am a veteran of the Twitter wars. But even I was taken aback by the swift, virulent response.
But buried beneath the bilious response to the Harper's joint statement is a worthwhile argument about freedom of association.
Posted at the Harper's Magazine site.
keeps in place the rest of the law banning robocalls to cell phones.
Straka loses on his discrimination, cyberbullying, defamation, and breach of contract claims.
Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the defendant didn't just create the list as a platform for others, but herself posted material about him -- though whether plaintiff ultimately prevails will depend on what discovery reveals.
"While Ms. Trump unquestionably possesses the same First Amendment expressive rights belonging to all Americans, she also possesses the right to enter into contracts, including the right to contract away her First Amendment rights." One precedent supporting that proposition: Another Trump v. Trump, a 1992 case involving Ivana Trump and Donald Trump.
Washington, D.C.'s writing "Black Lives Matter" on a street and letting others paint "Defund the Police" next to it doesn't require D.C. to let others paint messages on other streets.
Plus: Tech giants will testify in Congressional antitrust hearing, Seattle police clear out CHOP, and more...
So says a Third Circuit panel, though other circuits disagree.
This one focuses on student groups that get funding from public colleges, but it's an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
The Souls of Yellow Folk author says a new "elite consensus" fixated on racial outrage is forming and may destroy our ability to function.
"Hate speech" would be defined as an intentional "insulting statement about a group of persons because of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or physical, mental or intellectual disability."
Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
"To survive as a ... professor requires constant self-censorship and compromise, especially in the humanities .... Resistance comes at a cost .... [H]er colleague ..., a law professor, was interrogated and suspended from teaching after publishing a series of essays critical of ...."
Rep. Devin Nunes can't hold Twitter liable for allegedly defamatory posts by Twitter user:
Plus: Time to cancel U.S. propaganda outlets, Twitch sued over sexy women, new Assange indictment, social-justice symbolism, and more...
Judge Adelman's article sharply criticizing the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit concluded, was largely permissible under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, except "the opening two sentences of the article and the criticisms of recent policy positions taken by one political party."
"Publicly expressing anger toward an elected official is not a basis for entry of an injunction. In public debate, elected officials must tolerate insulting remarks—even angry, outrageous speech—to provide breathing room for the First Amendment."
"Defendant's Yelp post about plaintiff is reasonably and best understood to be, simply, name-calling."
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