TikTok or Not, Americans Still Have a Right To Receive Communist Propaganda
A unanimous Supreme Court decision established as much in 1965.
A unanimous Supreme Court decision established as much in 1965.
as courts rarely protect defendants who count on executive non-enforcement," writes Prof. Alan Rozenshtein (Minnesota).
But "[n]othing in Plaintiff's conclusory assertions suggest that Plaintiff could plead facts plausibly linking his identity with that of the pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto."
The popular video app restored service in the U.S. after President-elect Donald Trump promised to postpone a federal ban.
One of many allegedly defamatory statements allegedly sent by a former summer intern at a financial company; the court holds a proposed preliminary injunction against future speech by defendant about plaintiff would be an unconstitutional prior restraint, but issues a narrower injunction.
A judge lets Loomer's defamation claim against Maher and HBO go forward.
The pandemic showed the weakness of the leadership class. [UPDATE: Inadvertently posted it under my byline, but it's of course Ilya Shapiro's post, as the byline now reflects. -EV]
The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a ban on the app, but many creators aren't so sure.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a Texas case that could have major ramifications across the country—including, perhaps, the end of anonymity online.
Anyone discussing free speech should at least try to get this right.
featuring Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Yeshiva), Profs. Gregory Dickinson (Nebraska), Prof. Christina Mulligan (Brooklyn), Dhruva Krishna (Kirkland & Ellis), and me.
My "lived experience" at Georgetown gave me a unique perspective on the higher-ed crisis.
The right result, I think, but I don't think the court's reasoning is quite right.
How a 1949 Supreme Court dissent gave birth to a meme that subverts free speech and civil liberties
Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized "the government's attempt to lodge secret evidence in this case." Still, things look grim for the app.
Despite some notable wins, the president-elect's overall track record shows he cannot count on a conservative Supreme Court to side with him.
wife's concern "about public embarrassment and potential harm to Decedent's surviving children."
"[P]laintiffs ... allege[] that ... [Fox Corp.] 'actively participated in, directed, and controlled the publication' of the above defamatory statements composed and broadcast by the other defendants."
It’s the latest company to step back from dangerous alliances with political factions.
"'Fact-checkers' as the high priests of journalism had a political beginning at Facebook — and have met a political end."
Generally, when defendants made factual accusations based on what they said was personal knowledge, it's enough that plaintiff swear the statements are false, so it can be inferred that they are knowingly false. If that happens, it's usually up to the jury to decide who's telling the truth.
The lawsuit is brought by Jacki Pick against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, based on statement in Raffensperger's book, Integrity Counts.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10