"A Nashville city councilman threatened to withdraw business from a law firm, which served as the city's outside counsel, due to the position one of its attorneys took as the chair of the county election commission on a tax referendum."
The president’s reaction to a supposedly "seditious" video illustrates his tendency to portray criticism of him as a crime.
If someone was prosecuted (and later pardoned) for being an unregistered foreign agent for Iran, is it defamatory to say he was prosecuted for "spying"?
"The [eventually released personnel] records contain no negative performance reviews, but they do contain three anonymous complaints. Those complaints accused Grossenbach of 'creat[ing] a hostile environment for transgender and LGBTQ students' in connection with his SaveCFSD activities [allegedly referring solely to Grossenbach's outside-class political activity -EV], among other things."
The National Review founder's flexible approach to politics defined conservatism as we know it.
"The Defendants intentionally or recklessly invited public critique and scrutiny over Plaintiff's title as an exorcist by repeatedly asserting that the Plaintiff is not an exorcist."
"Drops in confidence across all political parties contributed to the record-levels of pessimism," writes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The president's authoritarian response to a video posted by six members of Congress, who he says "should be arrested and put on trial," validates their concerns.
I coauthored the article with four other legal scholars from across the political spectrum.
The Washington Post opinion editor Adam O’Neal outlines his vision for a more classically liberal editorial voice, examines how both parties turned against free speech and free markets, and explains why the paper is ending political endorsements.
President Trump "complained that, by using the phrase 'Big Lie' to describe his claims about the 2020 presidential election, CNN defamed him."
[UPDATE 11/17/2015 10:21 am: Sorry, post title originally accidentally omitted the "as a 'Jane Doe'" (which of course is what this decision is about, see below); I've revised the title to include it. My apologies!]
His lawsuit against the BBC is likely frivolous, however.
The First Amendment protects filming the police, but Berenice Garcia-Hernandez says she was dragged out of her car and detained for nearly seven hours for snapping photos of ICE agents.
FIRE suggests laws to trim FCC power and protect free expression.
The mainstream media have made serious errors. That doesn't mean every contrarian, fringe, or conspiratorial idea is automatically correct.
Brandenburg v. Ohio established the "imminent lawless action" standard. More than 50 years later, partisans keep trying to apply it selectively.
The street artist's London mural appeared after the U.K. Parliament voted to ban a group that uses "disruptive tactics" against manufacturers supplying weapons to Israel.
These lawmakers expect local authorities to ban "obscenity" before it happens—a recipe for chilling a wide variety of legal speech.
The former FBI director also argues that the charges against him are legally deficient and that the prosecutor who brought them was improperly appointed.
Larry Bushart was arrested on a $2 million bond for posting a meme on Facebook. He was released this week, after more than a month in jail.
So argues a concurring opinion in today's Second Circuit decision in Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School Dist., also speaking about speech that "callously cheer[s] on or condone[s]" "police brutality, ... religiously-motivated attacks on their houses of worship, sexual or gender-based violence, or any other type of targeted state or private violence."
So holds the Second Circuit: "Tying a student speaker's constitutional right to free expression solely to the reaction that speech garners from upset or angry listeners cannot be squared with [First Amendment] principles."
Remembering a monstrous era of American history
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks