Minn. Sup. Ct. to Decide: Do Ordinary Speakers Have Lesser First Amendment Rights Than Newspapers?
In 1980, the Minnesota Supreme Court said "yes"; yesterday, it agreed to hear a case that might lead it to reconsider.
In 1980, the Minnesota Supreme Court said "yes"; yesterday, it agreed to hear a case that might lead it to reconsider.
Some argue that the "freedom of the press" must give special rights to the press-as-industry, because otherwise it would be redundant of the "freedom of the speech" -- but in the Framing era, the two were complementary, not redundant.
Journalism prof Michael Socolow has three simple rules to up your social-media literacy.
A new section for the brief I blogged about last week, ultimately arguing that an injunction is improper in Sindi v. El-Moslimany -- but not because of the First Amendment.
A Nevada school district unlawfully required a student not to wear a gun rights T-shirt, according to a First Amendment lawsuit filed today in federal court.
The Free Press Clause, my research led me to conclude, has long been understood as equally protecting all who speak using the means of mass communications -- not just professional journalists and the like.
Court feels "menaced" by a pug.
The state law targeted people who share erotic photographs of others without their consent.
Why all Americans should be thankful for the First Amendment
"Yes," the Minnesota Supreme Court said in 1980 -- now it's being asked to reconsider that.
But its illiberal tactics against liberal Muslim reformers remain extremely troubling.
Activists who stormed the stage were shocked when alumni in the audience dared to heckle them.
It's a dissent from denial of rehearing en banc, joined by Judge Edith Jones, in a case that upheld a $350 cap for contributions to Austin City Council races.
But dumb, offensive speech still isn't violence.
Randa Jarrar reveals hypocrisy on the right.
"Privacy is not for sale, and human rights should not be compromised out of fear or greed."
I'm crowd-testing this draft amicus brief, which I need to be file by Wednesday, April 25. Please tell me what I'm getting wrong here!
The student handbook makes it clear that students broke university policy.
Congress doesn't have the best track record on privacy rights.
"We're not children! You can't talk to us like that!"
They say it's to protect free speech.
Does the Supreme Court's decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015) -- which upheld a restriction on fundraising by a judicial candidate -- also authorize much broader bans on candidate speech?
"You used language of safety and protection earlier. We see this happening on college campuses all across the country."
A Michigan jury tampering case strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.
"If Facebook and other online companies will not or cannot fix their privacy invasions, then we are going to have to. We, the Congress."
If you want to avoid conflict among hostile groups, decentralize power-preferably to individuals.
We need to up our media literacy game, not delegate responsibility to politicians who have no idea what they're doing.
Prodding private companies into self-censorship is a dangerous government tradition.
An interesting Arizona appellate decision rejecting a court's assignment of a treating therapist, and rejecting a gag order that limited parents' discussions with the child.
5 editorials call for the federal government to thwart Sinclair's expansion efforts in wake of creepy promo video; meanwhile you can count the number of anti-FOSTA eds on one finger
Giving juries the power to destroy a journalism enterprise for being offensive is bad for free expression.
Plus: YouTube shooter bought and registered gun legally.
Everett, Washington, continues to wage war against scantily clad "bikini baristas."
He is trashing the First Amendment to stifle the immigrant rights movement.
The ruling allows a civil suit against Backpage to proceed for one of the case's three plaintiffs.
Plus: Hackers take over Atlanta, demand ransom to lift lock on city computers.
The Forum features a talk by the author, with commentary by me.
The Trump administration is violating the rule of law in the name of upholding it.
More tech folks call themselves libertarian than anything else. So why are they afraid to speak up at work?
But wouldn't have stopped the Cambridge Analytica incident
And President Trump is mad at Amazon for...ruining the postal service?
Advertising "half-priced drinks" is legal. Advertising "two-for-one" drinks is not. Huh?
The retired justice wants to claw back parts of the Bill of Rights.
While America gawks at tales of consensual Trump-spanking, Internet freedom is coming under legislative and cultural attack
Proposal to verify online "bots" is security theater that will make it harder for small online firms to compete with the likes of Facebook.
Spokane Valley (Wash.) resists groups' letter opposing event put on by speaker who has at times drawn unruly supporters.
"They are being watched, and that's a problem."
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