A federal judge suggested that plaintiffs can sue as John Does only to the extent that identifying them would also identify nonparties who want to remain anonymous (such as the students who accused the plaintiffs of sexual misconduct).
An interesting echo, I think, of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982).
[NOTE: There is nothing parodic or facetious about any item in this post; it is entirely accurate. No, seriously, it is. Really, I mean it, really.]
Plus: Charlottesville cracks down on city employee speech, judge dismisses "blackout challenge" lawsuit against TikTok, and more...
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito repeated the common myth that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech.
[UPDATE: I've added comments from plaintiff's lawyer.]
"Journalism and investigative reporting have long served a critical role in our society. But journalism and investigative reporting do not require illegal conduct."
The facts are complicated, and involve a good deal more than just disagreement as to gender identity; but it seems to me like an important controversy.
A court may impose restrictions on redistribution of material obtained through court-ordered discovery (as opposed to obtained through other means)—though if the depositions are quoted in court filings or played in court, the material used would "become part of the public record, creating a presumption of public access."
"The defendants' [reliance] on ... source materials, including an official congressional report, articles in well-known newspapers and magazines, and police reports ... '... alone ... defeat[s] any claim of actual malice.'"
Appellate briefs need to be treated as public documents, and (I argued) shouldn't be "provisionally" sealed for months or years without findings that such sealing (or, more often, redaction) is genuinely necessary.
Prof. Elizabeth Weiss claims SJSU retaliated against her for her speech.
"We ... recognize ... that allowing this case to move forward could embolden abusers ... and could discourage victims and their families from seeking help. But, at the same time, we must acknowledge the potential for false accusations and the right that someone who is falsely accused has to recover for the harm thereby caused."
when the sermons lead to protests? That question is pending in Texas court.
Livestream with Nick Gillespie, Chris Rufo, and Zach Weissmueller's about Rufo's "counterrevolution" against wokeness
UPDATE: But wait! It turns out the decision was overturned on appeal, see below. (I've changed the title to a question; it originally said such a statement was indeed "harassment, intimidation, or bullying," summarizing the initial decision.)
Plus: The editors consider Ye and social media, then field a question about the TARP bailouts during the 2008 fiscal crisis.
"Committing vandalism by soup to send a message about climate change may be 'expressive,' but attempting to destroy someone else's work of art crosses moral and legal boundaries."
"While we are dribbling a ball on the other side of the ocean, people are losing their loved ones, losing their lives, and losing their hopes."
Plaintiffs want the nanny state to nanny harder.
Plus: Copyright versus the internet, roofer helping rebuild hurricane-damaged Florida houses arrested for lack of Florida license, and more...
Even when there's good reason to criticize universities, we should keep the students out of our battles.
The state can't really banish ideas, and it's dangerous to try.
[This is a guest post by Prof. Jack Goldsmith of the Harvard Law School.]
“We conclude no reasonable person would believe Plummer created a website describing himself as vexatious, incompetent, or dishonest.”
The return of the trollish forum demonstrates the futility of bans on bad speech.
"The allegedly defamatory nature of this statement is the implication that Plaintiff holds itself out as a local business when it is not. But truth is an affirmative defense to defamation under Delaware law, and the ... Declaration [submitted by Avas] does not deny that Plaintiff maintains call centers abroad in locations such as Mexico or Asia."
A federal court held that Prince was a public figure, and hadn't offered enough plausible allegations that the defendants knew the statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" showing).
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