California, Colorado, Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Ann Arbor, Seattle, Madison, and Guam
The State asked the court to impose "(1) a requirement that officers identify themselves and their agency before arresting or detaining any person; (2) a requirement that officers explain to any person being seized that he or she is being arrested or detained; and (3) an enjoinder against arrests that lack probable cause."
Generally, the government has broad authority to require any of us to turn over evidence relevant to an investigation.
Colorado, Montana, New York, North Dakota.
The Glens Falls (N.Y.) ordinance, the court held, lacked any exceptions for First-Amendment-protected spontaneous demonstrations.
The student has now sued Fordham
These exist in many states and some counties and cities, but are rarely focused on.
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."
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
