Do You Have a Right To Run Subway Ads Criticizing High Subway Fares?
A rider advocacy group says the Montreal's transit agency violated its free speech rights by refusing to run ads critical of recent fare hikes.
A rider advocacy group says the Montreal's transit agency violated its free speech rights by refusing to run ads critical of recent fare hikes.
Plus: Arizona prisons censor The Nation, Facebook's feed changes, and more...
"[W]e apply the strongest presumption of public access to the Memorandum Opinion issued by this Court ..., which, as an official decision of the Court, is considered the 'quintessential business of the public's institutions,' and is 'core to the transparency of the court's decisionmaking process.''"
A potentially very important 2-1 decision today from the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which held that such a #MeToo post wasn’t on a “matter of public concern,” and was thus less protected by the First Amendment.
The Florida "Marsy's Law," which protects crime victims, doesn't affect the analysis, even if police officers are treated as victims of the person they shot (who they say was threatening them with a knife).
Leviathan was a challenge to the governing independence of the Holy See.
Where there's demand for books, the internet will supply them.
Good news for fans of literacy and opponents of restrictive zoning codes
so viewpoint-based blocking of commenters doesn't violate the First Amendment.
"There is no question that inaccurate statements were made by the government as part of these proceedings—to both Judge Schroeder and the undersigned"—but it appears that the details of this alleged misconduct remain sealed.
It's none of their business.
"We hear you and we are sorry."
"The kind of values I've always embraced are heard more on Fox than on CNN and MSNBC, where they're not welcome."
For the officer's excessive force, the protester was later awarded a $175,000 settlement over the 2016 incident.
"They don't want the defendant to tell this side of the story," says Clark Neily of the Cato Institute.
Though book banners may try to convince otherwise, students don't need protection from the passion portrayed in Shakespeare's classic.
''The kind of values I've always embraced are heard more on Fox than on CNN and MSNBC," says the Pulitzer Prize–winning progressive journalist.
Among other things, "A jury could reasonably conclude that, before making so weighty an accusation as rape based on nothing more than hearsay evidence, the prudent person would, at a minimum, want to hear the other person's side of the story."
The feds now admit there was "no need" for such a thing.
We can condemn the actions of Moscow without forfeiting the right to point out missteps in Kyiv.
The lawsuit, which stems from statements about the fraternity’s use of a salute that looks similar to a Nazi salute and robes that some viewed as similar to Klan robes was rejected chiefly on the grounds that the statement was about the fraternity not the plaintiff, and was in any event opinion.
Amazon's decision to stop selling the book shows the pressure platforms are under to reject speech that doesn't conform to progressive orthodoxy.
As pop culture icons enter the public domain, a strange new era of copyright begins.
Stuart Reges placed a land acknowledgment in his syllabus. Just not the one his university wanted.
Heather Ann Thompson's Blood in the Water might lead to "disobedience," prison officials say.