The defendant had alleged that he, his family, and his lawyer had been threatened by the public, but the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the trial court wasn't given adequate evidence to justify sealing.
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
China's free speech record is bad, but the federal government's isn't so great either.
Assange's plea deal sets a threatening precedent for free speech and journalism.
Although the FBI never produced evidence that Ali Hemani was a threat to national security, it seems determined to imprison him by any means necessary.
The standing requirements laid down by the majority might make it extremely difficult or impossible for victims of indirect goverment censorship to get their cases to court.
The verdict in Murthy v. Missouri is a big, flashing green light that jawboning may resume.
It's a classic case of jawboning.
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Should pseudonymous litigants, and any precedents set in their cases, be known by the initials of the law firms that represent them?
"It’s not like public health is infallible," the Stanford professor and Great Barrington Declaration author tells Reason's Nick Gillespie.
The Town of Rose Bud restriction appears aimed at a particular proposed constitutional amendment, which would "require all schools receiving public funds to meet identical standards and would require universal access to pre-K education."
and continuing the conduct while following those employees."
Upcoming legislation would repeal parts of the 1873 law that could be used to target abortion, but the Comstock Act's reach is much more broad than that.
In this, the court agrees with the Florida Attorney General and the Governor’s office, and disagrees with the challengers who are trying to get the statute struck down on First Amendment grounds.
Two public university professors were disciplined for posting fliers saying a colleague was racist, and that a student group (Turning Point USA) was a racist "national hate group" with "ties to white supremacy."
The justices ruled that "objective evidence" of retaliation does not require "very specific comparator evidence."
The government alleges that Nikhil Gupta was involved in a "plot, directed by an employee of the Indian government, to target and assassinate a U.S. citizen for his support of the Sikh separatist movement in India."
So holds a federal court, also concluding that earlier sexual discussions could likewise justify restriction in the open public comment period (treated by the law as a “limited public forum,” in which reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions are constitutional).
An early article from what will eventually be several on Information as Medicine.
Issuing a posthumous pardon for Bennett would reaffirm our nation’s commitment to free expression and intellectual freedom.
A California trial court so ruled, and the California Court of Appeal just upheld that decision.
One of several interesting questions that arises in a case involving regulations of pregnancy centers that seek to help pregnant women without offering abortions or abortion counseling.
A Harvard Dean suggests universities can and should limit controversial speech.
Phoenix police are trained that "deescalation" means overwhelming and immediate force, whether or not it's necessary.
The underlying methodological debate might also bear on free speech disputes more broadly.
"Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is 'a mess,' 'incomplete,' not 'fleshed out for digital,' 'the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,' and 'full of holes like Swiss cheese.'"
