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.
Plus: Judge rejects Gabbard's Google lawsuit, Bloomberg drops out, and more...
"Google is not now, nor (to the Court's knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States government," wrote District Judge Stephen Wilson.
to try to vanish online magazine article about him.
Kimberlin is also known for having accused Dan Quayle of having bought marijuana from him, and has since become a frequent litigant, including against bloggers Patrick Frey (Patterico), Aaron Walker, and others.
It's often very hard to get court filings retroactively sealed.
stemming from a dispute about picketing and open carry.
Some panelists at the conservative conference want to give the government more power over social media.
In Facebook: The Inside Story, even Steven Levy’s most generous conclusions about the tech giant are still pretty damning.
So the Ninth Circuit correctly (and unsurprisingly) holds in Prager University v. Google.
The conservative nonprofit Prager University alleged the company should not be allowed to place its videos on "Restricted Mode."
The New York Times technology reporter is revealing how social media is encouraging individual expression.
The justices heard oral arguments this week in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
A couple of posts prompted by an error (since corrected) in an article that cited our brief.
"At a time when hate and bias incidents are on the rise, it is crucial that the state not remove these types of prohibitions that deter or punish this unacceptable behavior."
Nobody is being misled by this obviously joking debate clip. But this sort of ginned-up outrage will be used to target political opponents.
How the press learned to stop worrying and love censorship.
What’s at stake in United States v. Sineneng-Smith.
A clear constitutional violation.
The mob strategy is morally and practically flawed.
The lawsuit had been filed against the University of Colorado; the Scheduling Order, which the professor had sought to seal, referred to allegations of improper conduct on the professor's part.
Critics say the long-running satiric cartoon has created "a generation of boys" who are smug and disengaged.
In Janus, the Court rejected requirements that government employees pay dues to unions; now the question before the Court is whether this applies to mandatory bar membership (and bar dues).
Government wants to force social media platforms to accept a “duty of care” to protect users from whatever they deem harmful.
"The district court should not be a party to concealing this information from the public, especially as it concerns an arbitration organization that holds itself out to the public as impartial. These documents would be useful to the public in evaluating the true extent to which the organization is impartial."
An update on that Connecticut unsealing case.
Plus: Sanders tops Biden in new national poll, how federal housing policy is getting families evicted, and more...
(and perhaps to other government records).
Four Second Circuit judges gave fair use victories (separately) to rapper Drake and blogger Sargon of Akkad, concluding that defendants' uses of plaintiffs' work to comment on it and criticize it were fair use and thus not copyright infringement.
Plus: Maybe Buttigieg didn't win Iowa? Vermont considers decriminalizing prostitution. Customs and Border Protection gets a status change. And more...
Episode 10 of Free Speech Rules, a video series by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
"Say what you will about ISIS but at least they're not Islamophobic." Journalist Andrew Doyle has created the ultimate parody account.
If a motion to recuse argues that the judge has a conflict of interest because she owns particular property, can the judge order the redaction of all the details related to the location of the property?
"We need to stop this generation of big tech companies from profiting off of lies to the American people," the candidate told PEN America.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
