High School Cheerleader's Profane Social Media Rant Is Protected Free Speech, Says SCOTUS
First Amendment advocates prevailed in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
First Amendment advocates prevailed in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Holding a sign in a public park should not cause an arrest.
The Court doesn't set forth a categorical rule protecting such speech, but strongly suggests that such speech is normally protected by the First Amendment—and defines political speech broadly, to include criticism (even vulgar criticism) of school programs and officials.
Advertisers found that appeasing an illiberal mob wasn’t a safe choice after all.
In many professional arenas, Wu's swings and misses would have consequences. In Wu's case, it landed him an advisory role in the Biden administration.
Plus: Biden to back bill ending crack/cocaine sentencing disparity, the truth about tech startup creation, and more...
Plus: Georgia's voting roll purge draws media hype, Florida's drug law hypocrisy, and more...
When (1) states seek to protect abortion rights / gun rights / speech rights against private restriction, and (2) Congress seeks to encourage such private restrictions by preempting the state law protections, might such federal preemption violate the Constitution?
Three states have advanced constitutionally questionable laws.
Wayne Nutt worked as an engineer for decades. But because he's not licensed, North Carolina's engineering board says that he can't share his expertise in public.
The Fourth Circuit holds that Maryland's ban must be subject to strict scrutiny, a test that the prohibition is highly unlikely to satisfy.
It's wrong for politicians to suppress important debates in schools. Instead let families have more control of their kids' educations.
A new decision from the Georgia Court of Appeals.
The law would make a federal case out of every aggrieved internet user and compel companies to host messages they do not wish to platform.
If this doubly punitive anti-press maneuver sounds familiar, that's because it keeps happening, including to Reason.
Americans oppose restrictions, but report feeling less free to speak about political matters.
The three-judge panel struck down the statute by a 2-to-1 vote, but now the entire Eighth Circuit will consider the case en banc.
This violates the First Amendment, I think; the government generally may not discriminatorily terminate (or refuse to renew) contracts based on the contractors' speech on matters of public concern.
Plus: America's love-hate relationship with booze, Twitter CEO says "bitcoin changes absolutely everything," and more...
I don't know the correct level of content moderation by Facebook, Twitter, Google, or Amazon, and neither do you.
The creator of ultra-woke poet Titania McGrath makes the case against cancel culture.
"Stanford Law School is strongly committed to free speech," says Dean Jenny S. Martinez, who wants to "ensure that something like this does not happen again."
The university investigated a law school student for mocking the Federalist Society, putting his diploma on hold until yesterday.
The creator of Titania McGrath on cancel culture, government overreach, and younger generations' willingness to censor
Perhaps the ignominious end to Brian Buglio's career will alert thin-skinned cops to the perils of trying to punish people for constitutionally protected speech.
Dentons US LLP sought to “initiate a civil case under seal by filing a petition to confirm an emergency arbitration award.”
Defendants had said Klayman "'could be the single worst lawyer in America,' has 'never actually won a courtroom victory in his life,' and is an 'idiot' and an 'egomaniac,'" and that "Corsi he seemed to mentally be extremely degraded to the point of what I would call dementia."
A future Miranda warning for litigants? "I wish the SDNY pro se clinic had made me aware that many third-party commercial services download court documents ... and publish this information on the internet."
No, says a district court at first; yes, it says six days later. Always good to check the docket for follow-up orders, if you have the time.
can go forward, as a First Amendment retaliation claim, holds a federal judge.
“The Act is so rife with fundamental infirmities that it appears to have been enacted without any regard for the Constitution,” the lawsuit reads.
A Tennessee trial court "enjoined the parties [including a recent candidate for elected office] from making any public comments about each other and from making any 'negative or disrespectful comments' about each other to third parties."