Judge Stops California Law Targeting Election Misinformation
A federal judge ruled that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
A federal judge ruled that the law was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
(depending on whether the preacher also violated content-neutral conduct restrictions).
The judge concluded that the law, AB 2839, likely violates the First Amendment, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction blocking it from going into effect.
During Tuesday's debate, Tim Walz fumbled a key moment by misunderstanding the First Amendment
The broad ban on AI-generated political content is clearly an affront to the First Amendment.
as a means of stopping an anti-Israel "vigil" organized by the UMD chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The defendant had also posted (in 2019), "I'm gonna go to the [expletive] pro-Israel march and I'm going to shoot everybody" and other such statements.
Plaintiff (Stefan Passantino, Cassidy Hutchinson's former lawyer) may thus eventually prevail, if the claim is shown to be false, and if the defendant is shown to have spoken with "actual malice" (if plaintiff is a public figure) or negligently (if plaintiff is a private figure).
displayed on defendant's car and on her fence facing neighbors who have a transgender child; an appellate court reverses the conviction on procedural grounds, without resolving the First Amendment issue.
The case was brought by Turning Point USA over the University of New Mexico's decision to charge over $5K (originally planned to be over $10K).
The decision is a reminder that independent reporters are still protected by the same First Amendment as journalists in legacy media.
The university caved to pressure to target pro-Palestine events.
(1) the particular plaintiffs, who wore masks for health reasons, were excluded from the ordinance's operation, and (2) the risk that officials would misapply the ordinance to them wasn't sufficient to give them preenforcement standing.
New guidance makes explicit what should have been clear already: Standard 208 obligates law schools to embrace First Amendment principles.
A great free resource for lawyers, judges, academics, and students doing cross-state constitutional law research.
Reversing a trial court decision that awarded custody to mother.
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.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks