Publishing Private Phone Number May Be Tortious, Says Court in Case Brought by Shark Tank's Mr. Wonderful (Kevin O'Leary)
Defendant had 100K X followers, and as a result O'Leary "was flooded with unwanted communications."
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").
The appeals court vacated a preliminary injunction that had been based on her First Amendment rights
So an Eleventh Circuit panel held today, by a 2-1 vote.
The company's surrender to Trump's extortion vindicates his strategy of using frivolous litigation and his presidential powers to punish constitutionally protected speech.
The Justice Department cannot constitutionally prosecute a news outlet for covering the news.
Plaintiff claimed that the search results violated his "right of publicity," and also that the output was defamatory because it "uses a 'negative algorithm' that promotes negative stories about Garmon while suppressing positive stories about him—or, at least, pushing the positive stories down the list of search results."
Today's D.C. Circuit decision muddies the matter still further.
And the U.S. Constitution doesn't preclude this result.
"So whatever hard to imagine rationalization Haverford might offer for obscuring the content of its actual bias policy—an artifice reminiscent of Dean Wormer's 'double secret probation'—I find the demarcation 'draft' to be of no legal import."
"[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends."
The Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton weakens the First Amendment rights of adults everywhere.
Prohibiting the distribution of porn to minors, the Court says, legitimately carries with it some burdens on adults as well, when the burdens are closely linked to distinguishing the adults and the minors.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.