A Surly Showdown for Speaker
Plus: Would Adam Smith be a libertarian if he were alive today?
Plus: Would Adam Smith be a libertarian if he were alive today?
We'll give you an answer within 14 days, and we can publish them within several weeks, if you'd like.
An interesting illustration of the defamation per se / per quod distinction, recognized in some states.
The company's broad definition of "misleading information" and its deference to authority invited censorship by proxy.
People in power lean on private businesses to impose authoritarian policies forbidden to the government.
Standing with blank pages in hand, the protesters' goal is to make manifest the implied violence that authoritarian states use to keep order.
This week, a clip of Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin claiming that speech that espouses "hate" and "violence" is not protected by the First Amendment made the rounds on Twitter, sparking sharp backlash.
"On Hamline University's shocking imposition of narrow religious orthodoxy in the classroom."
It is not a workplace "disruption" that co-workers objected to a MAGA hat
The law bans doctors from providing "treatment or advice" "to a patient" "related to COVID-19" when that treatment or advice includes (1) "false information" (2) "that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus" (3) "contrary to the standard of care." The law regulates only speech to patients, not to the public at large.
A defendant had argued that she could allow Black Lives Matters posters but forbid MAGA hats on the theory that, "While the Black Lives Matter poster is a symbol of cultural acceptance and inclusivity ... Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat is a symbol commonly associated with white supremacy and other anti-immigrant sentiments." No, says a Ninth Circuit panel.
“[G]overnment officials ... should not be unduly constrained in their attempts to regulate hate speech for the purpose of protecting the intended targets of said speech. This may require some refining of the Supreme Court’s prior guidance in its precedents.... For example, the Court could consider modifying the Brandenburg test to require only a probable and emerging threat of violence rather than imminent lawless action as a result of speech in order to regulate it.”
“Students ... remain free to express offensive and other unpopular viewpoints [at least outside school], but that does not include a license to disseminate severely harassing invective targeted at particular classmates in a manner that is readily and foreseeably transmissible to those students.”
"It's stories and songs and films cut apart and written over, leaving no trace and no remnant of whatever used to be," writes novelist and cultural critic Kat Rosenfield.
Trial court: "I understand that you have a first amendment privilege, but sometimes the first amendment privilege contravenes certain statutes that are enacted by the State ...." Appellate court: That's "a misunderstanding of the relationship between statutes and constitutions."
"[T]rauma and lived experiences," the newspaper says, "are not open for debate."
As free speech becomes an increasingly important part of the culture war, people won't stop misinterpreting—and outright violating—the First Amendment.
The final report from the January 6 select committee falls short of proving the elements required to convict the former president.
According to the Complaint, "Ashley Guillard promotes herself on Amazon and TikTok as an Internet sleuth that solves high-profile unsolved murders by consulting Tarot cards, and performing other readings, to obtain information about the murders."
The weird judge-invented "commercial speech" exception to our right to free expression breeds strange results in suit against distributors of the 2019 movie Yesterday.
Their suggested replacement for 'Karen' is far more offensive than the term itself.
"Defendants are ORDERED to identify the lawyer responsible for this motion. The lawyer, by January 3, 2023, is ORDERED to submit an explanation of why the lawyer thought this was a justified motion. When I see the explanation, I will consider whether subsequent proceedings are appropriate."
The Second Circuit reverses such a limited sealing order, and sends the case back to the district court for further analysis.
Some conservatives toss “parents’ rights” out the window in a holiday culture war against kids at live shows.
The IODA aims to edit the legal defintion of "obscenity" to allow for the regulation of most pornography. But even if it passes, a nationwide porn ban is unlikely to succeed.
The latest Twitter Files installment shows the FBI paid Twitter millions of dollars to cover the costs of processing the agency's requests. Yikes.
“[I]t is reasonable to expect the person invoking the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside some of his privacy. Many statutes, such as the ADA [...] require a plaintiff to set aside his [] privacy and disclose information that he [] may otherwise wish to keep confidential.”
The employer had apparently threatened to do so as retaliation for the plaintiff's wage-and-hour violation claim.
Demands by lawmakers and government officials for locally produced content may lead to online censorship.
Maybe the FBI has something better to do with its time?
by Prof. Thomas Hochmann (Univ. of Paris Nanterre), 2 J. Free Speech L. 63 (2022).
Property owners are required to get permission from the city, the NFL, and/or the private Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee before displaying temporary advertisements and signs.
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