Grandmother Has Right to Publish Government Documents About Investigation into Grandson's Death
The Third Circuit holds that, once the government released the documents, it couldn't then forbid the grandmother (or others) from publishing them.
The Third Circuit holds that, once the government released the documents, it couldn't then forbid the grandmother (or others) from publishing them.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1:30 p.m. Eastern for a discussion with Matt Ridley of new documents that reveal how and why scientists downplayed the possibility of a COVID lab leak scenario.
He'd be a stronger candidate if he applied that thinking to situations that don't involve former President Donald Trump.
An illustration that courts are often willing to reconsider stipulated sealing and pseudonymization decisions when members of the public or media object.
Plus: Iowa court halts 6-week abortion ban, income inequality is shrinking, and more…
can go forward, rules a federal judge, denying Cleveland State University's motion to dismiss.
Plus: GOP candidate defends “limited role of government” in parental decisions for transgender kids, some common sense about Diet Coke and cancer, and more…
One thing is clear about Missouri v. Biden: The decision cannot be understood by viewing it through a polarized lens.
A federal court rejects plaintiff's arguments "that sealing ... is required because she is being 'slandered and libeled' and '[m]aking [her] information public would magnify the effects of [defendants'] wrongdoing' rather than right those wrongs."
Journalism is an activity shielded by the First Amendment, not a special class or profession.
"Disinformation" researchers alarmed by the injunction against government meddling with social media content admire legal regimes that allow broad speech restrictions.
The response to the decision illustrates the alarming erosion of bipartisan support for the First Amendment.
Plus: A listener questions last week’s discussion of the Supreme Court's decision involving same-sex wedding websites and free expression.
Adam Martinez was banned from school property after he criticized the district's decision to hire an officer deemed "ineligible for rehire" by the local sheriff's office.
An Oregon trial court allowed the case to go forward, but the Oregon Court of Appeals threw it out.
Prominent reporters and powerful officials know each other, share attitudes, and trust each other.
Government bullying won’t fix censorship caused by government bullying.
"Americans don't need a permission slip to speak in front of city hall. The First Amendment is their permission slip," said one attorney involved in the case.
Teachers are citing West Virginia v. Barnette to protect their right not to be compelled to say something they disagree with.
Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt that the judge's decision will meaningfully constrain the feds.
Lai's media company covered the Communist government's abuses when other Hong Kong media wouldn't.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion of the Court's recent rulings on affirmative action and same-sex wedding services.
even when plaintiff's lawsuit was connected to her having been allegedly sexually assaulted, which has often (but not always) been seen as a basis for allowing pseudonymity.
Plus: Teaching A.I. about the Fourth of July, and more...
The court concludes that this justification doesn't generally let plaintiffs sue pseudonymously in libel or disclosure of private facts that seek damages.
But the court insisted that the alleged leaker file identifying information under seal with the court, notwithstanding the alleged leaker's claim that the court computers could be hacked.
"We are adamant that the hiring committee...not extend a job offer to Dr. Yoel Inbar," reads the petition.
If you can't force a web designer to serve a gay wedding, can you force a web platform to serve a politician?
The speech compulsion it forbids is not limited to wedding-website designers who object to same-sex marriage, but its principles should apply only to a narrow range of commercial products
Submit them to the Journal of Free Speech Law; we'll tell you within 14 days whether we'll accept the submission, and then we can publish it very quickly, if you'd like.
The decision reverses a terrible previous decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
including when the requirement is imposed by antidiscrimination laws, for instance when such laws require web site designers who create opposite-sex wedding sites create same-sex wedding sites.
The environmentalist and anti-vaccine activist talks about his presidential run and whether he'd jail climate change skeptics.
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