Defendant had accused plaintiffs, "the King and Queen of [the Pittsburgh] Renaissance Faire," of failing to properly deal with allegations of sexual harassment, and of retaliating against sexual harassment victims; the jury found that the defendant knew the statements were false, or at least recklessly disregarded the risk of falsehood.
While chalking on D.C. sidewalks and streets is illegal, the protesters say they were targeted for their beliefs.
So a federal court held Thursday.
Langford had been in the news for joining a sorority, which has caused a good deal of controversy at the University of Wyoming.
"[T]he fate of Plaintiff's claims hinges to some extent on the truth or falsity of Defendant's statements regarding Plaintiff's conviction of a crime. Whether Defendant's statements are false—a determination that relies at least in part on Plaintiff's criminal records—is directly relevant to the public."
I had asserted the contrary, arguing that the state allowance of pseudonymity in trying to get removal from the list didn't justify pseudonymity in a federal court lawsuit seeking damages for such placement; but the court disagreed.
Trump and his acolytes' conduct was indefensible, but the state's RICO law is overly broad and makes it too easy for prosecutors to bring charges.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion with Jay Bhattacharya and John Vecchione about their legal case against the Biden administration.
People may be able to successfully sue based on allegedly false and defamatory statements about themselves, or about very small groups of people that include themselves—but not based on statements about whole countries or ethnic groups.
It may be part of a larger reassessment of subjecting all areas of life to ideological tests.
(Part of the fees also stemmed from defending against Ohio State's investigating his alleged research misconduct.)
It was never a principled fight against special privileges granted to a private company.
Just published, closing out our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech.
The District allowed "Black Lives Matter" protestors to violate the city's defacement ordinance, but enforced the law against groups with a different political message.
How cable TV transformed politics—and how politics transformed cable TV
Plus: A listener inquires about the potential positive effects of ranked-choice voting reforms.
Body camera footage shows that Delaware police cited Jonathan Guessford for flipping them off, even though they later agreed it was his right to do so
Plus: New Zealand libertarianism, Barbie economics, and more...
Profs. Peter Henderson, Tatsunori Hashimoto, and Mark Lemley, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
The decision supports the notion that victims are entitled to recourse when the state retaliates against people for their words. But that recourse is still not guaranteed.
"Is It a Platform? Is It a Search Engine? It's Chat GPT!," by Prof. Beatriz Botero Arcila, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
by Prof Jon M. Garon, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
by Prof. Nina Brown, just published in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
The rapper is a Bernie Sanders supporter who speaks out about gun rights and free speech.
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
"The material challenged in the plaintiff's complaint cannot be understood by a reasonable person as anything but substantially, if not literally, true."
Just published, in our symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Speech; more articles from the symposium coming in the next few days.
An allegedly psychic "Internet sleuth" alleged a professor was involved in the University of Idaho student murders; the professor sued; then the "sleuth" countersued.
When it comes to conflicts with people engaged in unpopular or disfavored speech, too many journalists side with the feds.
