The monologue was sexually themed, but it's not clear to what extent the court's rationale might extend to situations where a student objects to the monologue for other reasons.
The plaintiffs claimed that 15-year-old Bella Herndon committed suicide because of the film.
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.
I'm delighted to announce this new video/audio podcast series by Prof. Jane Bambauer (Florida) and me, and its first episode.
These aren't outright bans. But they still can chill free speech and academic freedom.
This is the film based on the bestselling book by FIRE's Greg Lukianoff and Prof. Jonathan Haidt (NYU).
The decision allows such pseudonymity when the defendant has already been found (by default judgment) to have committed the assault, but Judge Wilkinson's concurrence argues that, absent this unusual factor, one-sided pseudonymity should be frowned on.
The WikiLeaks founder already has spent as much time in a London prison as DOJ lawyers say he is likely to serve if convicted in the U.S.
"Lawyers in litigation may be expected to assume the risk of a certain amount of rough-and-tumble. Their families do not. In preying on the families of opposing counsel, Mr. Manookian crossed the Rubicon."
The administrator, at Texas A & M University Texarkana, alleges he was pushed out because of his race, and because he had declined to discipline a student who "had used the word 'Nigga' in [a classmate's] presence while on a trip to the mall."
What does it mean, in context, to say that a prosecutor "assisted with the prosecution" of someone who has been exonerated?
Harvard should pick someone with academic integrity as its next president.
The judge found that Food Not Bombs' activity was clearly expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
From limits on liability protections for websites to attempts to regulate the internet like a public utility, these proposals will erode Americans' right to express themselves.
Among other things, posts that "target the plaintiff's reputation and cause her emotional distress" aren't covered by the Massachusetts harassment prevention order statute.
Banning people under age 16 from accessing social media without parental consent "is a breathtakingly blunt instrument" for reducing potential harms, the judge writes.
An analysis of appeals involving the doctrine finds that less than a quarter "fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force."
Sen. Mike Lee's "technological exploitation" bill also redefines consent.
A federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the officers to proceed, finding evidence of several constitutional violations.
"he might want to consider hiring an attorney to represent him in this case."
The jury found no real damages, but gave a sizeable punitive award that could be challenged on appeal.
She also mistook the Adam in Michelangelo's famous painting for David.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
Plus: A listener asks if it should become the norm for all news outlets to require journalists to disclose their voting records.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
Republicans and Democrats are using emotional manipulation to push an agenda of censorship.
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