California Appellate Court Rejects Sealing of Alleged Libel
The common law, the First Amendment, and California court rules provide a broad right of access to court documents.
The common law, the First Amendment, and California court rules provide a broad right of access to court documents.
The government has broad emergency powers, but that doesn't mean the Constitution is suspended.
The Newsweek article, among other things, quoted a professor who said two young public supporters of Trump "'camouflage' positions of the hard right 'as feel-good sweetness and light, when, in fact, they are defending raw racism and sexual abuse.'"
I, however, do not apologize.
They trade tips and manuals through a decentralized information-sharing network. Biomedical technicians say it's the fastest and easiest way to get life-saving information.
The lawsuit is the latest in a string of frivolous suits the president's reelection campaign has filed against media outlets.
A federal magistrate holds that the right of access to court records precludes such sealing.
The case was a hate crime hoax perpetrated by a SUNY Albany student.
That violates the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and probably the freedom of assembly and association.
The Liberty University president thinks two reporters' coverage was unfair—so he wants them arrested.
She posted on social media about deliberately spreading the disease, but she's not actually sick.
"The Commission does not ... act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. plus an interesting discussion of the FCC's hoax rules.
Today, Judge Judge Timothy M. Witkowiak refused to issue the injunction, partly on prior restraint grounds. The election is scheduled for tomorrow.
Heard's Washington Post op-ed didn't mention Depp, but the judge concludes that in context it would be seen as implying factual assertions about him.
A word that appears >10,000 times in court cases, in a wide range of fields -- yet some insist that law professors not be allowed to quote it.
An interesting, though inconclusive, case involving preppers.
An interesting post by Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) on a demand letter ProctorU sent to UCSB.
The biggest thing our institutions could do to stop the spread of COVID-19 misinformation would be to spread less misinformation themselves.
It depends on the state where you live.
The district court reasoned that sealing was justified because of "the child's privacy interest in being protected from financial predators or others who would harass the child simply because they know the amount received." No, said the Fifth Circuit.
The contagious spread of information is in a race against the contagious spread of coronavirus.
An important principle, which also applies to uses of trademarked terms in films, books, video games, and the like: "A party does not violate trademark law solely by using words another entity has trademarked."
The California Court of Appeal reversed, in an interesting case about allegations of physical abuse—and claims that the allegations were themselves a form of "abuse."
The restrictions are less dangerous precisely because they are so broad and onerous.
The plaintiffs are claiming, among other things, "group libel."
Will coronavirus help rehabilitate tech's rep?
New York Times columnist and Decadent Society author defends prohibitionism in a conversation on The Fifth Column.
A case decided Monday reaffirms this principle, especially in the Seventh Circuit.
at least under the Illinois "innocent construction" rule, under which "a nondefamatory interpretation must be adopted if it is reasonable"—"a reasonable reading of Lorenz's article is that although Wedgewood communicated with underage girls, he never meant to take things further."
A new lawsuit is challenging the California DMV's rejection of allegedly offensive personalized license plates.
Probably, if it's limited to knowing falsehoods (or perhaps statements where the speaker knows they are probably false).
"I would rather be remembered for writing something that was...offensive, than to be forgotten for writing something bloodless."
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
In light of this, should the presumptive First Amendment right of access to court cases require the court to provide video coverage of hearings?
The EARN IT is an attack on encryption masquerading as a blow against underage porn.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but it's an interesting con law hypo.
An interesting 1969 case (based on a publication right after the 1968 election), reversed on appeal in 1974; thanks to Jacob Gershman (Wall St. J.) for letting me know about it.
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