Missouri Government Agency Threatening to Sue Critic for Libel
But lawsuits for libeling the government do not "have any place in the American system of jurisprudence."
But lawsuits for libeling the government do not "have any place in the American system of jurisprudence."
"It's just an effort to keep everybody safe and make sure nobody has any ill will," he claimed.
I'm against it, whomever it's coming from.
The first of twelve articles from the Knight Institute’s Lies, Free Speech, and the Law symposium.
But plaintiff's claim that he was retaliated against for raising religious objections to the training, and discriminated against based on religion as to promotion, can go forward.
The psychologist and bestselling author argues that Harvard's free speech policy was so "selectively prosecuted that it became a national joke."
“Even open democracies have implemented restrictive measures,” finds a global report.
under California statutes that protect private employees' political activity; the plaintiff claimed that "[s]he listened to speeches being made and walked to the Capitol, and then she left," and "did not participate in any rioting."
Prof. Hamburger continues to conflate coercion and voluntary choice.
Round 3 in the debate between Hamburger and Somin over the First Amendment and Murthy
This used to be possible under the old "alienation of affections" tort, but all but a handful of states have abolished it, and the tortious inducement of breach of contract tort can't fill that gap.
Prof. Hamburger is wrong to argue that the use of the word "abridgment" implies that noncoercive government persuasion directed at social media firms violates the First Amendment.
Florida appellate courts are pretty good about reversing unconstitutional injunctions against speech (though Florida trial courts seem to be pretty willing to enter such injunctions).
The lottery winner is suing an ex-girlfriend based on a non-disclosure agreement aimed at concealing his identity. (The intervention, at this point, is aimed at just unsealing various sealed documents in the case, not at disclosing the parties' names.)
U.S. prosecutors are looking to wriggle out of an espionage trial for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"Mayors should not be allowed to launder animus through warrants," the former city council member's lawyer told the justices.
at least when the license requires 6000 hours of training on matters far removed from his expertise.
and so can the professor's Title VII and Title IX discrimination claims against the university.
State officials “jawboned” financial firms into cutting ties with the gun-rights group.
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
Diosdado Cabello, Nicolás Maduro's right-hand man, is threatening retribution against the satirical website.
Justice Jackson, like Justice Breyer (whom she replaced and for whom she clerked), seems to be considering an approach that is more embracing of speech restrictions that she views as especially urgent—including perhaps ones that departs from precedents such as the Pentagon Papers case.
The government can't block viewpoints it condemns from its own property that has been opened to publicspeech. Should there be limits on government systematically and substantially encouraging private entities to block the same viewpoints from their property—which may be much more important to public debate than the government property where speech remains free?
Such speech can be found to be "impermissible harassment," the court says, partly because "deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder."
The government is entitled to try to persuade social media to take down posts, but not to coerce them to do so.
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
Plus: A listener asks about Republicans and Democrats monopolizing political power in the United States.
The company leaves Texas over an “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous” age-verification law.
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
The president of the new University of Austin wants to reverse the decline of higher education in America.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, though, reverses the order, concluding the judge wasn't allowed to issue such an order on his own initiative; it doesn't decide whether such an order would violate the First Amendment.
This bears on when the official's comment deletion or blocking decisions may violate the First Amendment.
"It's a disturbing gift of unprecedented authority to President Biden and the Surveillance State," said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).