The First Amendment and the Specific Preliminary Injunction
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
The organization objects to gun restrictions only if they impinge on other constitutional provisions.
Plus: Christians and bureaucrats versus Tarot in Virginia, and Democratic candidates on restoring voting rights to prisoners
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
They say the social media companies display a bias against conservatives.
Censorship continues to be about empowering those in charge.
Please share it widely!
I thought I'd serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions; here is the section on criminal libel law -- the article argues that anti-libel injunctions are like mini-criminal-libel laws.
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
Will a thirst to punish Silicon Valley destroy our liberty?
In a now-deleted Facebook post, Loudoun County deputies brag about a drug bust, get dragged, and likely don't learn any lessons.
An allegedly bogus dossier on plaintiff was sent by defendant to a third party in 2003 -- and then hit the news in 2017. Can plaintiff sue for libel?
That's what Christiane Amanpour asked former FBI Director James Comey.
This violates the First Amendment and common law rights of access to court records, I think; Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) has just filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the matter (Shelby Resorts Corp. v. Does, in New Jersey Superior Court).
The president of the American Enterprise Institute says we need to reboot politics and that libertarians may hold the key.
Do you have a license to link to that story? Will your sexy Tinder photo get confused with a celebrity's?
It's an order to create policies, not a policy -- so it's hard to tell what it will do until we see what policies various departments create.
Its exclusion of Chick-Fil-A from the airport appears to be based on the viewpoint expressed by Chick-Fil-A and various organizations to which it donates.
Q&A with political strategist Liz Mair.
A very interesting symposium, with (among many others) Floyd Abrams, Prof. Leslie Kendrick (Virginia), Nadine Strossen (former head of the ACLU), and more.
[UPDATE: Sorry, this was double-posted; please add any comments to the post above.]
With big tech helping government officials to control the sharing of information, we need to support alternatives to undermine their censorious efforts.
But courts can't order suspension of an entire account even if they find that some posts were libelous.
This is besides the libel claims he is bringing against them; highly insulting Tweets, he argues, are "fighting words" and thus punishable under Virginia law.
The defamation (and negligence) claims against Twiter are blocked by 47 U.S.C. § 230.
Plus: SCOTUS declines Hawaii lesbian case, UC stands by professor in free speech standoff, and ACLU warns of "privacy Trojan horse."
The statute doesn't require that the defendant knew the statement was false or likely false, and is thus inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
The "equal time" rule does not mean what the president thinks it means.
Q&A with the co-founder of Institute for Justice about immigration, his legal philosophy, his battles with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and that tattoo.
Plus: a Rand Paul add-on makes sure measure doesn't inadvertently authorize new wars, Dick's stores are dropping guns, campus art controversy, and good 8A news
Every reasonable officer should know that, says the Sixth Circuit.
Federal judge's ruling in a fair-use lawsuit "is a big win for the First Amendment."
Nobody in the media should be supporting an elected official trying to control what speech online platforms allow.
If your client has been ordered not to say things about someone, here are the precedents supporting your right to an expedited appeal.
There's no room for errors and online platforms face huge fines, likely encouraging overly broad takedowns.
"I'm more confused than angry about all of this."
Clearly unconstitutional, of course.
An interesting decision called United States v. Suppressed.
Another court opinion reinforces this principle -- even if repetition of libelous statements can be forbidden after a trial on the merits at which the statements are found libelous, it can't be preliminarily enjoined before such a trial.
Meet the undergrad who is recovering the legacy of gay, socialist civil-rights activist Bayard Rustin while explicating Kanye West's conservatism.
Universities should be proactive about articulating, defending and protecting the free exchange of ideas on campus
If universities do not take steps to address their campus free speech problems, politicians will do it for them
Both sides agree to stand down. First Amendment precedents were on the baker's side.
"Google and Facebook should not be a law unto themselves. They should not be able to discriminate against conservatives."
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.