Retired Pastor Faces Trial Under U.K. Speech Laws for Preaching John 3:16 Near Hospital
Despite not mentioning abortion in his sermon, Clive Johnston is being charged for trying to "influence" people not to go through with the procedure.
Despite not mentioning abortion in his sermon, Clive Johnston is being charged for trying to "influence" people not to go through with the procedure.
"Plaintiff is allegedly the target of hurtful, angry, offensive, humiliating, racial, and gender-based hate made in online posts by Defendant's followers. As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by staunching Defendant's speech against Plaintiff through an injunction, doing so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment."
No pseudonymity for teacher challenging removal of pride flags from classroom, because his identity had already been disclosed through public records requests.
Silencing "Fighting Bob" details how the government targeted anti-war critics like Sen. Robert La Follette.
The Court's 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan is freshly relevant in light of recent efforts to restrict speech through government intimidation.
The groups and their ideology are awful. But Virginia's policy violates the First Amendment. Allowing it to stand could set a dangerous precedent.
The defense secretary's asserted authority to control the speech of retired military officers "would chill public participation by veterans," a brief supporting Mark Kelly warns.
The Ivy League school released a self-critical report this week.
The judge felt there was probable cause for an arrest but he declined to go so far as to convict.
Remembering the infuriating case of United States v. “The Spirit of ’76.”
After withdrawing a summons in the face of a legal challenge, the government is seeking a grand jury subpoena.
"I don't even care if you or your mom are inside. I actually hope you are. You both deserve to die. I am going to kill you, Robyn. I don't understand why you don't get that. I will burn you. You will die."
Fortunately, an appellate court just reversed the decision.
The poster, which included a rainbow flag, counts as "instruction that includes sexuality content" and triggers an Ohio parents' rights law, the board said.
In the guise of investigating "potentially unlawful advertiser boycotts," the commission is punishing the organization for its views.
A police officer threw Renea Gamble to the ground and handcuffed her because her costume might have offended his kids.
Many other courts do generally allow pseudonymity in those particular cases, but the Seventh Circuit disagrees.
online, after they send a demand that they not be named (and declare that there has been an online-naming-related threat or incitement against them by someone else).
Could a court likewise order, say, Gmail to cut off a person's access to his Gmail account, if there's reason to think the person has misused that account for criminal purposes? Does it matter that the person isn't a party to the proceeding, and thus can't assert his free speech rights?
Trump's failure to properly allege "actual malice" is consistent with his long history of filing shaky legal claims against people who say things he does not like.
The court concludes that Trump hadn't adequately alleged facts that would support a finding that the defendants knew the article was false (or were reckless about the prospect); Trump has an opportunity to file an amended complaint if he can identify such facts.
Petitioner's new-found "public figure" status, and concerns that records are "impeding his employment, professional credibility, and personal safety," don't justify sealing, either.
"Market Erasure," "Three Plinths," "The March 2nd Transformation," "Karen" "branding," and "The Commercially Savvy Lawyer."
Free speech lawyers say UNC violated North Carolina’s institutional neutrality law.
The court doesn't decide whether Meta actually violated state law, or whether it may have a First Amendment defense; those decisions will be made later in the case.
"In essence, the plaintiffs argue that every time a Jew or Jewish organization contributes to (in this instance) a public university and that university, acting under established policy, disciplines a student who advocates for, in this instance, 'particularly Palestinian" policies, the simultaneous presence of the contribution and the discipline creates a plausible inference of a conspiracy between the contributor and the university to punish the "particularly Palestinian' advocate."
Tech companies that create social media apps should not be blamed for the complex mental issues of everyone who might use them.
The 18-year-old college freshman had to have his right eye surgically removed after a federal agent allegedly shot him in the head with a less-lethal weapon.
"Furthermore, to temporarily deprive a student of his cell phone during a class or a test and return it to them after the class or test is completed (or even at the conclusion of the school day) is not a constitutional violation."
The British government has stopped the rapper from headlining at the London Wireless music festival. Why is that the British government's business?
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