The speech included in-class display of "Free Palestine," e-mail signature saying "From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free," and pro-Palestinian social media posts.
This was not an attack on the free press.
"Reading antidiscrimination laws to prohibit the voicing of views critical of a foreign state, or support thereof, would raise serious doubts about their constitutionality, which the Court must avoid."
Censorship tends to blow up in the faces of the censors.
The Florida Immigrant Coalition's new billboards were restored less than a day after being taken down, but why were they removed in the first place?
Judge James C. Ho recently described a troubling phenomenon on the 5th Circuit and the government abuse it enables.
Defendant had 100K X followers, and as a result O'Leary "was flooded with unwanted communications."
AI chatbots failed to "rank the last five presidents from best to worst, specifically regarding antisemitism," in a way that Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey likes.
She did her best to manage Elon Musk, protect free speech on X, and appease advertisers.
Anti-SLAPP motions generally can't be used to resolve he said/she said factual disputes in such matters.
"[V]ery agreeable to the theorist, but utterly unfit for the practical purposes of society ...."
Plus: Pittsburgh lowers prostitution penalty, FSC v. Paxton, the Diddy verdict, and more…
The government’s lawyers also say that supposedly nonexistent policy is perfectly consistent with the First Amendment.
Why Edward Snowden deserves not only a presidential pardon, but a hero's welcome home.
The case settled while motions for summary judgment were pending; the plaintiff, Prof. Timothy Jackson, had prevailed against an earlier motion to dismiss, and the Fifth Circuit had also rejected defendants' appeal as to procedural matters.
But speech sharply critical of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and of Sharia (and thus perhaps of traditionalist Islam) had been found, by the same commission, to be unethical.
"[T]he heart of the district court's analysis in denying Brooks's initial motion was its conclusion that the litigation would not require Brooks to disclose the information that he had filed under seal. But, in some respects, the district court's order did just that—it put the information that Brooks had filed under seal on the public docket."
Perhaps the one thing Americans still have in common is our eagerness to criticize government.
From the Eleventh Circuit, a reminder that First Amendment protections against government employer action are much weaker than the protections against the government as sovereign (especially, but not only, when the speech is also "disrespectful, demeaning, rude, and insulting").
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
