Firing for Off-Duty Pro-Confederate-Flag Speech May Violate Colorado Statutes
So held a federal judge, I think correctly, interpreting those particular statutes, in a lawsuit against United Airlines.
So held a federal judge, I think correctly, interpreting those particular statutes, in a lawsuit against United Airlines.
Plus: Sexual misconduct at the FBI, Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Lee don't understand the First Amendment, and more...
An American Enterprise Institute "Are You Kidding Me?" podcast episode, with Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and me.
What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?
Yesterday’s Socratic method post followed up today with Jungian analysis.
The plaintiff claims Apple was upset about his stance critical of censorship by the Chinese government, in the context of his reviewing the Guo Media App, established by a Chinese dissent.
Speech targeting whites, males, and Americans would be less likely to be blocked as "hate speech," the Washington Post reports.
So holds the Washington Court of Appeals.
"I am pessimistic about where this goes in the future," says the outgoing chairman, who is stepping down in January.
Words to live by from the President of the University of Chicago, in response to demands to punish a professor who spoke out against various "diversity, equity and inclusion" programs.
We've just filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Oregon Supreme Court to protect such equal rights, and overturn Oregon precedent that denies such rights.
at least in the context of a Facebook squabble.
Another unconstitutionally overbroad injunction, struck down by the Florida Court of Appeal.
The outgoing FCC chairman discusses 'light-touch' regulation and the future of free speech on the internet.
Earlier in November, surveillance footage captured officers beating a man for not wearing a mask.
So a district court suggests in a challenge to a Texas statute that limits drone photography that "surveil[s]" private property—but that exempts similar surveillance by academics and certain others,
A company had a trademark canceled in a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board proceeding, based on what the Board described as the company's "delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders." The TTABlog posted about it, and some commenters criticized the company's lawyer, who sued them for libel.
The decision should also support secular private schools having similar rights as well. (Public schools are under control of the state government, and lack First Amendment rights against it.)
With talk of QUEER, 69, AF, OG, "guns, weaponry, shooting, or an instrument normally used to inflict harm," and more.
"He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia."
Plus: National Labor Relations Board rules against The Federalist, France is getting less free, and more...
Seems quite inconsistent with basic academic freedom principles.
A court order, in Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, on its face seems to command all Internet services to remove material that mentions the daughter (Kelly Hyman), or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).
An interesting, though unsurprising, decision in a case brought by prominent Russian businessmen over the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
The University rightly responds: "At the core of this demand is a disconnect between the law and First Amendment freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, and the desire by many in the campus community to punish those whose comments are hurtful to others."
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
Louisiana is one of about a dozen states that has a criminal libel statute; my sense is that, throughout the country, there are likely about 20-30 criminal libel prosecutions per year.
"So what?." asks David Harsanyi at the National Review, quite correctly.
Richard Stengel published that argument in the Washington Post last year.
But what one side likes, the other side hates. There's no way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both.
That's Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.), holding that a N.Y. restriction on live music was unconstitutional.
Past perfect, libel-proof plaintiffs, substantial truth, “actual malice,” statutes of limitations, and more.
But I think the First Amendment prohibits such pretrial injunctions, and in any event the injunction targets opinions and not just false factual assertions.
Plus: Homeland Security says this election was "the most secure in American history," Chicago asks residents to stay home again, and more...
Other excluded books: Huckleberry Finn, The Cay, and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry.
The court finds that the Trump campaign didn't offer enough facts suggesting that CNN knew the statement was false (or was likely false); the campaign is allowed to file an amended complaint if it can make more specific allegations.