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.
Plus: Naomi Wolf has no clue (again), gun site wins Section 230 case, and more...
Under the government's theory in some of the charges, any reporter who knowingly prints certain kinds of government secrets could equally be prosecuted.
"I want to be clear that the comments I made are not indicative of who I am or who I've become in the years since."
"In this day and age, one must accept the possibility that one might be recorded in public. That possibility heightens when one chooses to engage in vitriolic behavior."
Jon Goldsmith called a local deputy a "stupid sum bitch" on Facebook, so the deputy's superior charged Goldsmith with writing a threatening statement.
Tor, a leading service for anonymously accessing the Internet, is shielded by 47 U.S.C. § 230.
A Savannah, Georgia, law that required testing and licensing of tour guides is found unconstitutional.
The federal attempt to take the patch uniquely combines free speech violations and asset forfeiture.
Plus: An old drug warrior learns new tricks, Taiwan legalizes same-sex marriage, and more...
Social media platforms and governments are "voluntarily" teaming up to ban "violent extremist content." What could go wrong?
The AFL-CIO's Twitter account appears to endorse a workers' revolution.
The supposed plague of misleading and harmful information on the internet is nothing new, nor is governments' desire to muzzle anybody who says inconvenient things.
A new book reaches the right conclusions on telecom policy but suffers from anti-market myopia.
No ifs, ands, or butts about it.
Co-founder Chris Hughes' call for antitrust action is vainglorious and misguided.
"If this order were a Yelp review rather than a court ruling, it might read as follows: 'This attorney tried to persuade the court to enter an injunction by citing an obviously invalid trial court order—zero stars.'"
That's notwithstanding the view of Lake City (Florida) police, who arrested and charged Shane Dillon for display this sticker.
“I don't know who to believe. Why don't I just go there and see for myself?"
Some students at the University of the Arts want the firebrand feminist fired. Where did they get the idea they should be picking faculty?
Resist when politicians declare that speech (even radical speech) is a “threat to our democracy.”
Private property rights, public squares, "dangerous" speech, and pre-regulatory suck-ups, all debated on the Reason Podcast.
A district court decision from several years ago, which I just ran across.
Even more worrying: New Zealand's leading media outlets are self-censoring coverage of the Christchurch mass shooting.
These schools are seriously committed to civil and diverse debate.
So a federal district court held Monday, and concluded that this principle was well-established enough to defeat a qualified immunity defense.
So the Wisconsin Supreme Court held yesterday, reversing a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision.
Can a court block multiple statements that seem to come from several people, but that were actually all posted by one person?
The group takes its First Amendment crusade to a public park in Minnesota.
Director Penny Lane chronicles the rise of the Satanic Temple, a group that combines theatrical stunts with political activism.
An interesting decision from the Fifth Circuit, allowing a negligence claim to go forward against organizer Deray Mckesson; the court's reasoning relies heavily on the illegal nature of the protest.
"Students were just screaming that we were trying to 'kill them.'"
Just filed yesterday, and I think it should prevail.
So holds a District Court decision, though stressing the "may be."
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on other grounds?
They're joined by an arrested spa owner and manager in fighting the release of surveillance video, with an array of big media companies on the other side.
Legal scholar Jeff Kosseff wanted to write a "biography" of Section 230, the law that immunizes websites and ISPs from a lot of legal actions. He fears he has written its obituary.
Seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation, even if the name is viewed as an offensive reference to illegal aliens (which the corporate owners apparently don't intend).
Classifying heavy internet use as medical addiction leads to bad policy and inferior patient care.
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on state separation of powers principles?
A relatively novel suggestion, aimed at providing libel defendants with the necessary First Amendment protections while still giving libel plaintiffs protection early in the litigation process.
Right after 290 people were killed in a series of Easter Sunday bombings
That's the legal theory behind a case just filed by prosecutors in Ohio.
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