'Freedom of the Press' and Non-Professional-Media Speakers: Why It Matters
Some judges in recent have years have reasoned that non-professional-media speakers have lesser First Amendment rights.
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.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals let a case against gun-sales advertising site Armslist go forward -- and in the process undermined 47 U.S.C. § 230 protection for a wide range of web sites.
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.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.