Such speech, whether about elected officials or others, is punishable, the court held, if it "[does] not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct" and "could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant."
"Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy."
That result "may strike some as unfair," the court says, but it's what state law required at the time.
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
So the majority held in today's decision about the exclusion of "immoral or scandalous" marks from trademark registration (the FUCT case).
The Supreme Court rules that the bar on "immoral or scandalous" marks is viewpoint-based, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor say that an exclusion of "vulgar or profane" marks would be viewpoint-neutral though content-based. (The other five Justices express no opinion on a hypothetical "vulgar or profane" mark ban.)
A local bakery accused the college of defamation after students launched a public campaign against the store for racial profiling. Oberlin mounted a free speech defense.
According to the ACLU of Rhode Island, which is representing the blogger, the order was issued without any adversarial hearing at which the blogger could appear.
Stanford Law professor and former Google attorney Daphne Keller says tech giants are facing pressure from governments worldwide to clamp down on content.
Plus: Immigration officials confirm Trump tweets about new raids, Elizabeth Warren talks sex work decriminalization, and more...
The move is an assault on free speech.
Hawley is selling it as a way to fight tech-company "bias" against Republicans. Don't believe him.
"These type of microaggressions occur too often on campus."
Reason's Robby Soave on his new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump
I shouted out, who killed online freedom of speech? When after all, it was you and me.
Alice sends nude picture to her ex, Bob. Bob's new girlfriend (or maybe would-be girlfriend) Carol gets it and posts it online. Carol wouldn't be guilty under the state revenge porn statute, the court rules.
The president's spokeswoman is doing what she has always done on TV, unencumbered by the legal distinction between partisan pundit and executive branch employee.
A lawyer caught on tape criticizing his client (a judge), in the making of a documentary about the prosecution of rapper Meek Mill.
Nancy Pelosi's overwrought take on Donald Trump's receptiveness to "oppo research" is hard to take seriously.
The debate about whether the killer should have been prosecuted for federal hate crimes shows how the Justice Department targets defendants based on the opinions they express.
Be afraid as more journalists and politicians start calling for stronger policing of online speech.
Plus: psychedelics research bill moves forward, big companies push back against abortion bans, and more...
Prof. Michael Dorf, who co-signed an amicus brief with me on this subject, adds more in response to an exchange with a law professor on the other side.
Despite scant evidence, everyone wants to believe that social media has a unique ability to control our thoughts and actions.
"The presence of YAF would further marginalize minority students on campus."
When Tucker Carlson and Elizabeth Warren agree on trade, regulation, and social media, it's time to rethink a few things.
The U.S. Supreme Court had sent the case back down to be considered in light of the (narrow) Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.
The video platform temporarily demonetized a conservative comedian's channel, satisfying no one.
The People v. Lawrence Ferlinghetti explains how America embraced free speech—and how we're ready to throw it away.
The Seattle festival's organizers argue that banning signs referring to state-licensed cannabusinesses violates the state and federal constitutions.
Censorship inevitably ends up being used to protect the powerful from criticism.
Plus: Spending bill includes pro-marijuana changes, State Department starts collecting social media accounts of visa applicants, and more...
Abroad, legislators are in the mood to theatrically punish social media companies. CEOs shouldn’t play along.
So holds a (nonprecedential) California Court of Appeal decision in the Jenni Rivera heirs vs. Univision case, though the decision is narrowly tied to these particular facts.
"Students are expected to attend classes. If they fail to do so without a valid excuse, their absence is duly-noted and appropriate action is taken. But the teachers at the center of this controversy expect different treatment."
"An elaborate investigative and enforcement regime designed to restrain, deter, suppress, and punish speech."
The "blogfather" once touted the internet as the antidote to Big Government, Big Business, and Big Media. Now he wants the feds to crack down on social media.
The Trump appointee warns that "little would be left of our First Amendment liberties" if cops could punish people who irk them by finding a legal reason to bust them.
Sound words from a federal district court decision handed down last year.
So holds a district court, in a copyright case brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses against a Reddit commenter.
The Utah Supreme Court upheld a six-month suspension without pay, based in part (though not entirely) on these remarks; the judge has a history of past discipline on other grounds as well.
Episode 4 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
In the best of all possible worlds, such actions wouldn't be necessary. In the current climate, boycotting social media might spark a return to a robust marketplace of ideas.
Don't believe the Justice Department when it reassures journalists that the WikiLeaks founder is uniquely guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
