The Florida Department of Health sent a cease and desist order to a Florida news station after it aired an ad claiming that women with cancer would be unable to obtain abortions in the state.
Reason's new documentary is now streaming on the video platform CiVL. I hope you'll watch.
The introduction to a symposium reprinted from Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Both presidential candidates (and their running mates) seem confused about the constraints imposed by the First Amendment.
To support the Chiefs, the young fan "wore Native American headdress, painted his face black and red, and donned a Chiefs jersey"; Deadspin said this was "black face" and showed "hate" towards "Black people and the Native Americans."
A divided circuit panel stays the district court's injunction against enforcing Ohio's law.
The film ties together years of reporting on a legal saga with broad implications for both free speech and sex work.
Her comments are a reminder that this free-speech protection is far from safe.
When civilians are the targets, terrorists’ grievances don’t matter; it’s time to hunt the perpetrators.
Daniel Horwitz often represents people illegally silenced by the government. This time he says a court violated his First Amendment rights when it gagged him from publicly speaking about a troubled state prison.
"The judge soon learned that, in a recorded conversation between defense counsel and the defendant, the attorney had referred to the age, race, political affiliation, and gender of the court's judges, and suggested that the court 'should look a little bit more like the people that are in front of them.' The attorney also suggested that the defendant would not receive a fair trial from the court's judges, who are a different race and gender from the defendant. Finally, the attorney used a pejorative term, drawing on racial and gender stereotypes, to refer to the complainant."
A federal judge ruled that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
(depending on whether the preacher also violated content-neutral conduct restrictions).
The judge concluded that the law, AB 2839, likely violates the First Amendment, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction blocking it from going into effect.
During Tuesday's debate, Tim Walz fumbled a key moment by misunderstanding the First Amendment
The broad ban on AI-generated political content is clearly an affront to the First Amendment.
as a means of stopping an anti-Israel "vigil" organized by the UMD chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The defendant had also posted (in 2019), "I'm gonna go to the [expletive] pro-Israel march and I'm going to shoot everybody" and other such statements.
Plaintiff (Stefan Passantino, Cassidy Hutchinson's former lawyer) may thus eventually prevail, if the claim is shown to be false, and if the defendant is shown to have spoken with "actual malice" (if plaintiff is a public figure) or negligently (if plaintiff is a private figure).
displayed on defendant's car and on her fence facing neighbors who have a transgender child; an appellate court reverses the conviction on procedural grounds, without resolving the First Amendment issue.
The case was brought by Turning Point USA over the University of New Mexico's decision to charge over $5K (originally planned to be over $10K).
The decision is a reminder that independent reporters are still protected by the same First Amendment as journalists in legacy media.
The university caved to pressure to target pro-Palestine events.
(1) the particular plaintiffs, who wore masks for health reasons, were excluded from the ordinance's operation, and (2) the risk that officials would misapply the ordinance to them wasn't sufficient to give them preenforcement standing.
New guidance makes explicit what should have been clear already: Standard 208 obligates law schools to embrace First Amendment principles.
A great free resource for lawyers, judges, academics, and students doing cross-state constitutional law research.
Reversing a trial court decision that awarded custody to mother.
The court concluded that the Director of Safety and Security at a small private college didn't qualify as a "public official or public figure" for purposes of the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
The court stresses, though, that "The complaint includes no claims brought solely on behalf of Plaintiff Doe," and "Based on the description of the claims, including when and where the alleged vandalism took place and photographs of the vandalism, it appears defendants could adequately defend themselves against the claims without knowing Plaintiff Doe's identity."
The worldwide erosion of support for free speech continues.
So holds the Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court's decision—but the court's standard of review suggests that the exact oppose district court decision might have been upheld, too.
State boards use outdated laws to target content creators, raising urgent questions about free speech in the digital age.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
