The court concluded that the Director of Safety and Security at a small private college didn't qualify as a "public official or public figure" for purposes of the state's anti-SLAPP statute.
The court stresses, though, that "The complaint includes no claims brought solely on behalf of Plaintiff Doe," and "Based on the description of the claims, including when and where the alleged vandalism took place and photographs of the vandalism, it appears defendants could adequately defend themselves against the claims without knowing Plaintiff Doe's identity."
The worldwide erosion of support for free speech continues.
So holds the Eleventh Circuit, upholding the district court's decision—but the court's standard of review suggests that the exact oppose district court decision might have been upheld, too.
State boards use outdated laws to target content creators, raising urgent questions about free speech in the digital age.
Opposing Priscilla Villarreal's petition for Supreme Court review, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton portrays basic journalism as "incitement."
What if there was a social media platform owned not by Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or the Chinese Communist Party, but by everybody and nobody all at once?
employees were required to "correctly" answer multiple choice questions based on the training content.
As Israel-Hamas demonstrations continue in the new school year, the misunderstanding of free speech is fueling disruption and hypocrisy on campuses.
As long as academic institutions place social justice goals ahead of truth seeking and knowledge creation, they will lose the respect of the public and will not live up to their potential.
Officials allegedly retaliated against a professor who expressed politically controversial statements about the best treatments for gender dysphoria among youth.
Glenn Greenwald discusses Brazil's ban of X, the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov, and the global crackdown on speech on Just Asking Questions.
Social media poses problems far more serious than misinformation campaigns, but solutions consistent with the First Amendment are not clear.
Prof. Allan Josephson (formerly of the University of Louisville medical school) claims his contract wasn't renewed because "he expressed his thoughts on treating childhood gender dysphoria during a panel discussion sponsored by a conservative think tank [the Heritage Foundation]."
The best practitioners of the freedom of speech are those who do not assume that everyone who disagrees with them operates from bad motives.
Plaintiff had alleged that being publicly identified would put him at risk of physical harm.
The opinion includes some interesting discussion of defamation by implication.
The final article from the Information as Medicine symposium.
Go after bribes and espionage, but leave mere speech alone.
An article from the Information as Medicine symposium.
Some of the hardest free speech issues arise when a university argues that restrictions are justified by its "educational mission."
But he loses: "As a result of Godlewski's guilty plea to 'inappropriate text [m]essages' and 'contact' ..., as set forth in the Affidavit of Probable Cause quoting the offending text messages admitting and memorializing a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old minor, Godlewski is collaterally estopped from denying his participation in [the] sexual relationship ...."
The survey of over 50,000 students also found that 37 percent of students said it was "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker, up from 31 percent last year.
An article from the Information as Medicine symposium.
claims that someone has engaged in specific conduct may be factual assertions and therefore potentially libelous.
Law students: Take that Choice of Law (often called Conflicts of Laws) course your law school offers; it can be tremendously important.
The Democratic nominee has favored policing online speech. Would a future Harris administration defend free expression?
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks