How Bad Facts Make Good First Amendment Law
Jay Near was a hateful man whose litigation set a vital precedent for free speech.
Jay Near was a hateful man whose litigation set a vital precedent for free speech.
So holds an Oregon appellate court.
The term “hate speech” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s legally protected in the U.S.
So reasons a Florida appellate court, though other courts in other states seem to take a different view.
Jane and I lay out the structure of American defamation law, using the recent lawsuits brought by FBI Director Kash Patel as a launching point. Special bonus: Almost no discussion of New York Times v. Sullivan (an important case but one that listeners have doubtless heard much about elsewhere).
Financial censorship should worry us all, suggests Rainey Reitman in Transaction Denied.
"[S]tatements made to third parties can be 'directed at' the victim," and thus criminal harassment if they're repeated and likely to cause serious annoyance or distress, "when they are designed to provoke an adverse consequence against the victim."
When he returned to the White House, Trump vowed to protect free speech from the government. The FCC's latest move against ABC and Disney looks like the opposite.
The panel (by a 2-1 vote) stayed a district court order that, among other things, blocked the newly established escort requirement.
But the judge suspends his decision pending appeal, so that the appellate court has "time to consider and decide the merits of this case, absent unnecessary procedural deadlines."
To justify punishing a legislator for his speech, a FIRE brief notes, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth relies on a Supreme Court precedent that is clearly inapposite.
and thus presumptively a First Amendment violation (though here the presumption was rebutted by national security interests).
The order came in a peculiar context—a civil lawsuit over the custody of a child born in Afghanistan—but its logic extends further.
The wild things are in the nightclubs.
Despite not mentioning abortion in his sermon, Clive Johnston is being charged for trying to "influence" people not to go through with the procedure.
"Plaintiff is allegedly the target of hurtful, angry, offensive, humiliating, racial, and gender-based hate made in online posts by Defendant's followers. As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by staunching Defendant's speech against Plaintiff through an injunction, doing so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment."
No pseudonymity for teacher challenging removal of pride flags from classroom, because his identity had already been disclosed through public records requests.
Silencing "Fighting Bob" details how the government targeted anti-war critics like Sen. Robert La Follette.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
The groups and their ideology are awful. But Virginia's policy violates the First Amendment. Allowing it to stand could set a dangerous precedent.
The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.
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