Firing Based on Employee's Pre-Employment Social Media Posts Leads to Discrimination Lawsuit;
federal court allows the case to go forward.
federal court allows the case to go forward.
leads some readers to engage in "threats and harassment" against the business.
The 12-year-old boy kicked out of class for sporting a Gadsden flag patch is back in school.
A cabinet minister who once defended the right to blaspheme now wants a crackdown.
Among other things, "Default judgment will be entered against Giuliani as a discovery sanction ..., holding him civilly liable on plaintiffs' defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, civil conspiracy, and punitive damage claims ...."
In theory, yes; in practice, perhaps soon.
A federal judge compared Waylon Bailey’s Facebook jest to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre."
"The Gadsden flag is a proud symbol of the American revolution," says Colorado Gov. Jared Polis.
The lawyer's true superpower is to turn every case into a case about procedure.
What counts as an "artistic work" for purposes of special protection under the Texas anti-SLAPP statute?
It's hard to argue that providing a pipe constitutes a speech act.
Porn sites and other online spaces with adult content are fun; they’re also important sources of community and information.
The appeals court ruled that a Facebook post alluding to World War Z was clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Only when necessary to protect five basic internet rights.
Banks routinely snitch on customers and even deny services to people politicians don’t like.
The sorority, the court held, had a First Amendment freedom of expressive association right to choose which students to admit (logic that suggests that a sorority would equally be free to exclude transgender members).
The hospital baselessly claimed the teenager's mother wrote the petition after she was fired without cause.
The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."
Section 230, the court says, immunizes good-faith attempts to block spam—and RNC didn't introduce enough evidence of bad faith.
The post led to the author being arrested for "terrorizing"; so clearly unconstitutional that the police officer lacks qualified immunity, says the Fifth Circuit.
"Applicant's warning of a prima facie violation of Japanese law's privacy protections fails to constitute a harm severe enough" to justify pseudonymity.
The motion allows early dismissal of a lawsuit, here the lawsuit that aimed to block UC Irvine from responding to a public records request from the Center for Scientific Integrity (the Retraction Watch people).
So a court concludes in a case brought by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Like other features of legal procedure—such as the jury trial, the mechanism for appointing judges, the availability of appeal—pseudonymity both deeply affects the fairness of litigation and, often, the substantive outcomes.
“The whole woke movement, it’s obviously an echo of those times.”
Plaintiffs sued for defamation, and also for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the comments aroused by Baldwin's posts.
The government gets to pick and choose which speech it displays on its property, and doesn't have to give others a right to reply (except in public fora, which don't include school walls).
Defendant had accused plaintiffs, "the King and Queen of [the Pittsburgh] Renaissance Faire," of failing to properly deal with allegations of sexual harassment, and of retaliating against sexual harassment victims; the jury found that the defendant knew the statements were false, or at least recklessly disregarded the risk of falsehood.
While chalking on D.C. sidewalks and streets is illegal, the protesters say they were targeted for their beliefs.
So a federal court held Thursday.
Langford had been in the news for joining a sorority, which has caused a good deal of controversy at the University of Wyoming.
"[T]he fate of Plaintiff's claims hinges to some extent on the truth or falsity of Defendant's statements regarding Plaintiff's conviction of a crime. Whether Defendant's statements are false—a determination that relies at least in part on Plaintiff's criminal records—is directly relevant to the public."