No, Blocking Traffic Is Not Protected by the First Amendment
The freedom to protest is essential to the American project. It also does not give you carte blanche to violate other laws.
The freedom to protest is essential to the American project. It also does not give you carte blanche to violate other laws.
An excellent piece in the N.Y. Times Magazine by Prof. Stephen Carter (Yale Law).
Opponents of pandemic restrictions had their day in court and won a victory for open dissent.
“The safest course of action in terms of a possible violation of the NCO would be to refrain from writing or to be interviewed for articles that mention the name of the student with whom you have an NCO (or to retract them if that’s possible).”
The N.H. Supreme Court reversed the order.
It's a frightening reminder of how far the government will go to get their way—and to warn tech companies against platforming speech it doesn't like.
"Plaintiff is entitled ... to make his own judgment about whether disclosing his identity under seal to the Court would pose an inordinate risk to his personal safety. But he is not entitled ... to special dispensation from the well-established requirements of the law."
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president.
In an amicus brief filed in Murthy v. Missouri, they ignore basic tenets of First Amendment law in order to quash online speech they don't like.
even when he "adopted a controversial 'no punt' strategy."
"There has been a deliberate attempt to inflame the public against experts," warned one Davos panelist.
How identity politics and institutional cowardice have undermined the free speech on which our society relies.
Author James Kirchick supports the First Amendment, full stop. Why don't more journalists?
The bill is broad enough to target a Saturday Night Live skit lampooning Trump, a comedic impression of Taylor Swift, or a weird ChatGPT-generated image of Ayn Rand.
he has a right to know how and why the government took that action.”
But that’s not adequate reason to allow them to litigate pseudonymously, a district court rules.
The court concludes that, because the plaintiff hadn't applied to be hired, he didn't have standing to challenge the policy.
Republicans should remember that they have spent years railing against censorship on college campuses.
The doctor's claims that he was open to either explanation is flatly contradicted by his literal words.
In an era when X (formerly Twitter) is blamed for all the ills of the world, here's a case where it did good.
that it’s probably not “‘trying to advance the public exchange of ideas’ essential to a healthy democracy.”
The lawyers also argue that the speech in the newspaper was “not made pursuant to its right of free speech, but to instead to advance the personal agendas of male faculty members at Notre Dame [and others].”
The state Senate bill, which is extremely similar to another House proposal, aims to scrap major First Amendment protections in defamation cases.
A good illustration of the strong policy of openness in American court cases, even when defendants argue that unfounded allegations in court records are intruding on their privacy and damaging their reputations.
The trial court found that "Decker continued contacting Siewert after she had asked him to stop five times" and "Decker's intent was to impose his will on Siewert to make her write about certain issues and to cover those issues in the way that he wanted them covered."
Restricting speech about the world's most pressing problems does not make them go away, nor does it settle any disputes.