Is It Too Much To Ask That Politicians Know What They're Talking About?
The answer to “Why should these people go to prison?” should not be ill-informed gibberish.
The answer to “Why should these people go to prison?” should not be ill-informed gibberish.
"Plaintiff's behavior may make it more difficult for other courts (and the public) to find his litigation history, which could act to conceal future vexatious litigation or behavior."
On Wednesday, a Massachusetts judge will decide whether Joao DePina will face the possibility of a decade behind bars for publicly criticizing a district attorney.
A new ruling says Twitter and Facebook are not “common carriers" and thus cannot be forced to carry politicians' messages.
The result might have been different "if plaintiff's speech had occurred off-campus."
Jerry Rogers Jr. complained that police hadn't solved a murder yet—and found himself in a jail cell.
The court so holds as a matter of the law of remedies, though I think such an order would generally be an unconstitutional prior restraint as well.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."
The trial court reasoned: "You guys ... have a spat on Facebook.... Nobody cares about these s[p]ats. Just block them and move on."
Criticism of Grayson (who's now running in the 2022 Florida Senate primary) in his losing 2018 House campaign was based on "articles by independent, reputable sources," and there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that the defendants knew their statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" standard).
Plus: Twitter defends user anonymity, Oklahoma legislature approves abortion ban, and more...
Massie was the only House member to vote against a resolution demanding social media companies do more to track and suppress antisemitic content.
The student's mother alleged that he had been bullied and the school district had done nothing to protect him; the teacher's aide responded in an online public discussion, saying (among other things) that the student had been doing the bullying; the parents sued.
said Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) about this amicus brief from Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) and Phillip R. Malone of the Juelsgaard I/P and Innovation Clinic (at Stanford).
And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
In response to the Buffalo massacre, Gov. Kathy Hochul invoked a hoary analogy to justify censorship.
So holds a federal district court today; striking down a Tennessee statute.
A content-neutral ban on all residential picketing would be constitutional; but the "intent to harass or disturb" limitation may make the law unconstitutional or ineffective.
Plus: The editors each point out one key disagreement they have with one another.
The law forces social media firms to host and promote speech they oppose, and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by the courts.
A federal judge ruled Monday that North Carolina bureaucrats violated the Constitution when they tried to ban a Flying Dog beer over a possible penis on the label.
"It's all induced by the internet," she said.
but that she received from the lawyers for the man accused of killing him.
So the Michigan Court of Appeals held Thursday, in a case brought by the former head women's gymnastics coach at Central Michigan University.
"If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you," the company tells employees.
The account posted items such as (in mid-2020), "ASU: No More Social Distancing. No More Masks. It Is Time to Party!"
The U.S. Polo Association investigation exonerated the plaintiff, but the plaintiff still sued the USPA for libel.
A "disinformation" board sounds like something from a dystopian novel.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.