After Gay Wedding Cake Ruling, Supreme Court Punts Floral Arrangements Case
Washington State told to revisit ruling against Arlene's Flowers.
Washington State told to revisit ruling against Arlene's Flowers.
Is the ACLU becoming less committed to protecting free speech, especially speech that some view as "imped[ing] progress toward equality"?
"Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed."
Matt Kibbe explains why "beer is freedom," and talks about his new documentary series with Rep. Thomas Massie, Off the Grid.
It all began with a jurisdictional dispute over an Egyptian divorce proceeding and a New York divorce proceeding.
Frivolous defamation lawsuits undermine the First Amendment.
Very narrow decisions -- or decisions not to decide -- in some more of the Supreme Court's most watched cases.
Clinch seeks "an apology," "an undertaking from you not to post anti-trans or vilifying posts in future, and to remove those that are currently on your public Facebook profile," "a further undertaking from you to remove any anti trans and vilifying posts made by other people from your public profile," and "for you to participate in training about vilification, and trans' issues."
A big win for First Amendment advocates in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
But a more precise ban on clothing in polling places (which the Court treats as "nonpublic fora") that mentions candidates, parties, or ballot measures may be constitutional.
Federal Judge Raymond Moore applies strict scrutiny to a system with the power to restrict political speech and finds it unreasonable to outsource that power to anyone and everyone.
My first foray into podcasting here at Reason, a discussion with Reason editor Katherine Mangu-Ward.
A conversation with Eugene Volokh about what's legal to publish and why-plus doxxing, lock picking, source protection, and more.
A day after DOJ joined free speech lawsuit, UM agreed to change policy that said "the most important indication of bias is your own feelings."
"The United States has a significant interest in the vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms in institutions of higher learning."
The N.Y. Senate just unanimously passed a bill that would do that.
So holds the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, affirming a juvenile court finding of responsibility.
Each one of us has the right to access court records, so we can just sue pro se (though it helps to know the legal rules).
A tiny free speech victory.
The First Amendment constrains speech regulation by the government, not by private parties.
How much do you trust judges to make such decisions without public scrutiny?
There's a New Hampshire prosecution for criminal libel of a police chief -- and it may well be legally viable, at least if the defendant's statement is seen as a knowingly false factual claim. [UPDATE, June 8, 2018: Charges have now been dropped.]
Despite its ruling in favor of a Colorado baker, the Court remains hostile to religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.
The court decision was just a declaratory judgment, and thus not strictly legally binding.
An interesting opinion from three Georgia Supreme Court Justices.
"Slowly, we will continue to crush the Left's will to resist, as they will crack under pressure."
A libel lawsuit in which the alleged libel is sealed is like Hamlet without the Prince -- or maybe like Othello with Iago's slanders redacted.
Four Justices opined on this issue, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saying that requiring bakers to make cakes for same-sex weddings is an unconstitutional speech compulsion, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor saying the opposite.
This 7-2 ruling is more about Colorado's biased enforcement of discrimination law than freedom of expression.
"[A] soldier who willfully communicates information relating to the national defense 'is not entitled to invoke the First Amendment as a shield to immunize his act of thievery.'"
No, says the Iowa Supreme Court, rejecting the claim that such statements (labeled "counterculture practices" by the plaintiffs) were libelous or negligent.
Conservatives want to hold the left to the Roseanne standard.
The center-right Danish government, whose members defended the Mohammed cartoons, has passed more laws restricting free speech than any government since World War II, says free-speech podcaster Jacob Mchangama.
But it took a federal court order.
Our video is awesome. But nothing in the First Amendment says YouTube has to run it.
We offer how-tos, personal stories, and guides for all kinds of activities that can and do happen right at the borders of legally permissible behavior.
The very fact that Robinson got 13 months in jail was also initially illegal to report.
The show navigated a fascinating complicated world of ideological diversity. Its star was not so adept.
The president and his detractors both bungle scare stories in the outrage-politics contest that passes for our immigration policy debate.
College limits protest, suppressing everybody's free expression.
A new Vice feature by Michael Moynihan highlights not just disillusioned comics but campus bookers ready to "pull the microphone" from performers who use language deemed intolerant.
The ruling against Donald Trump's blocking of Twitter critics provides guidelines for staying on the right side of the First Amendment.
"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem," Trump says, "or you shouldn't be playing."
Federal judge rules that the First Amendment prohibits the president from blocking followers based on their political views.
So holds a federal district court today, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks