What kind of a showing of possible "harassment" or "reprisals" must backers of such ballot measures make to keep petition signatures (and financial contributions) from becoming public records?
The court's view appears to be that, the more public interest in a case, the less the public is entitled to know.
The longtime head of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education announces a new name and expanded mission for FIRE.
Former Apple Daily writer Simon Lee says China's crackdown reveals the CCP's ambitions for global authoritarianism.
Plus: Coverage of Section 230 is overwhelmingly negative, Arizona cops who watched a man drown have been placed on leave, and more...
Its operative provisions just require social media platforms to create a mechanism for taking complaints about such "hateful" speech; but the title is "hateful conduct prohibited," and it's clear the legislature is trying to get social media platforms to restrict such speech more.
Under the reasoning of the Georgetown University Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity & Affirmative Action (IDEAA) report in the Ilya Shapiro matter, a wide range of public speech criticizing religions, political parties, veterans, etc. could be "prohibit[ed] harassment."
but because here the employer's (and union's) actions were basically just an incident of public criticism, they didn't qualify as hostile environment harassment (and the employee wasn't fired or demoted).
"Further analysis shows that you’ve made it impossible for me to fulfill the duties of my appointed post," writes Shapiro.
The law school reinstated him on a technicality, but made it clear that they weren't going to uphold the university's free speech policy.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is becoming the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Plus: FIRE moves beyond campus, a 1,000 percent excise tax on semiautomatic rifles?, and more...
Can a web designer be compelled under the First Amendment to host wedding pictures?
In most states, if a court issues a gag order and you don't appeal it, you can go to jail for violating it even if you later argue that it violates your First Amendment rights.
The case may get refiled, but it’s not looking promising.
"I look forward to teaching and engaging in a host of activities relating to constitutional education," said Shapiro.
A federal statute imposes liability for conspiracies "to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner" for the election of federal candidates, or for "injur[ing] any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy."
David Cole writes, Ira Glasser and Wendy Kaminer respond. [UPDATE: Added Cole's reply.]
Press accounts had said he “had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls” and that he had told a 14-year-old girl at the mall “she looked pretty.” "But viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, the court finds that telling viewers that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting sex from a 14-year-old Santa’s Helper is more stinging than telling viewers that Moore complimented a 14-year-old girl on her appearance or telling them more generally that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting young girls.”
"I can't think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim."
Heard won $2 million on one of her counterclaims.
National Legal Director David Cole insists that the critics are wrong, but he fails to contend with much of the substance of their critiques.
Plus: Who's bringing fentanyl across the border? Will Austin become a sanctuary city for abortion? And more...
The ruling is not a final decision on the merits. But it likely signals that at least five Supreme Court justices believe the law is unconstitutional.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch join Justice Alito's dissent, and Justice Kagan disagreed with the majority without opinion. This is not a decision on the merits of the law, but Justice Alito's dissent notes why the answer to the merits question is "quite unclear."
Ideas Beyond Borders is bringing ideas about pluralism, civil liberties, and critical thinking to hotbeds of Islamic extremism.
$50K in funding was withdrawn by a Brooklyn councilwoman, and transferred to a different organization.
Painting "Black Lives Matter" doesn't require New York to allow other groups to paint other slogans.
An isolated sexually themed passage, even a graphic one, doesn't make a work obscene.
It's chiefly because Virginia doesn't recognize nonmutual collateral estoppel, of course!
So a district court held Tuesday.
You absolutely, positively shouldn't be allowed to read it. Definitely forbidden.
