Blocking of Twitter Users from @RealDonaldTrump Violates First Amendment
So holds a federal district court today, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
So holds a federal district court today, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
Teams will now be fined if their employees don't show sufficient on-field respect during the National Anthem, because we live in a very serious country.
[UPDATE: The university is now reported (as of Friday, May 25) to be saying that no investigation is taking place, and that the original student newspaper account saying that there was such an investigation was mistaken; but the university hadn't responded to FIRE's earlier queries about the matter, and it hadn't responded to my query before I had to put up my post.]
"If people are offended by his shirt-that's their right to be offended," said the student's attorney, state Rep. Mike McLane. "But it's also his right to have his opinion."
"'Very liberal' students are nearly four times more likely than moderate and conservative students to favor prohibiting some types of speech."
LAMBDA Legal suggests the answer would be "yes," under the American Bar Association's proposed rule 8.4, which they are supporting.
That's what D.C. stalking law, as interpreted by D.C. courts, calls for.
The councilman was Trayon "Rothschilds Control the Weather" White (or, if you prefer, Trayon "Nazi Stormtrooper Protectors" White).
I'll grant Justice Courtney Goodson's request to block ads that allegedly libel her during her reelection campaign, says one trial judge. Unconstitutional prior restraint, says another.
Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the difficulties and importance of free speech.
A new Google policy calls for such deindexing based on administrative agency findings-without a court order-in cases where the agency is "charged with protecting consumers' physical safety from harm by products or services that they consume."
A conversation about social media, privacy, and the public-private, left-right free speech fight
"A northwest Arkansas judge who ordered that attack ads critical of Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson be taken off the air this week reported receiving [over $12,500 of] income, through his wife, from the law firm of Goodson's husband."
A customer reports that he was blocked from accessing us at a Nordstrom coffee shop; have you had similar experiences?
The ad criticizes Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; the TRO that she just got today is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.
..and other things I learned when I spoke at a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights briefing.
"[Defendant's] posts inspired viewers' comments, which read like a nerd's version of a fist fight." More substantively, "In this context, and considering the cutting-edge nature of [plaintiff's] research into antimatter's theoretical applications [which defendant was sharply criticizing], a reasonable reader would expect zealous debate."
Stamford, Connecticut, police chief objects to salty language on a sign. That's not a crime.
Faced with the possibility of fines or legal battles, many will choose not to speak at all.
According to the group's theory, a vast range of political hardball is a crime.
"A bias response system has no place in America."
Too many people (and governments) want to shut down and punish speech they disagree with.
So concludes the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, in rejecting rapper Dr. Dre's trademark claim against OB/GYN -- and OB/GYN-related writer and lecturer -- Draion M. Burch, who calls himself Dr. Drai.
A First Amendment violation, I think, notwithstanding the court's concern about the anonymous Tweeter's privacy.
The EU's GDPR should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans eager to reign in tech titans
"A horrifying and chilling example of political correctness."
The New Jersey Supreme Court answers.
So the New Jersey Supreme Court held this morning, in Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman.
"Freedom of the press," as I've argued in earlier posts, was understood as protecting the freedom of all to use the printing press -- not just a freedom of the profession or industry that we might call "the press."
Rahm Emanuel wants to do the thing that critics of drone surveillance fear most.
Some judges in recent have years have reasoned that non-professional-media speakers have lesser First Amendment rights.
The government fears that the popular children's cartoon has taken on a "subversive hue" and may "hamper positive societal morale."
One activist is ordered "not [to] post photographs videos, or information about [the other] to any internet site."
The HBO series turns Facebook and Twitter into a theme park filled with sex, violence, and robots.
"Freedom of the press," as I've argued in earlier posts, was understood as protecting the freedom of all to use the printing press -- not just a freedom of the profession or industry that we might call "the press."
Social media can actually be pretty good at hosting heated conversations about racism and sexism.
At the end of one Avengers screening, a man started yelling, "If you were to die tonight, would your passage to heaven be guaranteed?"
Brooklyn Council Member Justin Brannan crows via tweet that "we've successfully chased the @NRA underground in #Brooklyn."
Speakers' free speech rights threatened
More on why the freedom of the press wasn't seen as limited to "the press" in the sense of the institutional media, but extended to all who used the printing press.
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