Joshua Gray was denied a Maine private investigator license on the ground that his past posts erred in criticizing a Maine State Police lieutenant; we’ve filed an amicus brief supporting the petition asking the Supreme Court to review the matter.
The court concluded that the conversation violated a previous order barring the ex-wife "from making any other public allegations against the Petitioner, Joe Stark, on social media (on any platform) or to his employer which may affect Petitioner's reputation or employment."
"New psychological research suggests that trigger warnings do not reduce negative reactions to disturbing material—and may even increase them."
A bill touted as banning "critical race theory" in schools would actually ban a huge array of speech around culture, race, and sex, its sponsor says.
Should I file it in a Gothic font?
Here’s an amicus brief our UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic just filed, on behalf of the Cato Institute.
Government restrictions on private editorial discretion violate the First Amendment.
Dillon Shane Webb will thus not be able to sue for the alleged violation of his free speech rights.
Robby Soave doesn't like it when social media deplatforms users, but the far bigger threat comes from lawmakers on a mission.
No, law enforcement and school officials cannot order students to remove posts about exposure to the coronavirus.
So holds a district court, concluding that the law is unclear enough that a police officer was entitled to qualified immunity based on his arresting a man for the sticker.
“Defendants may have preferred to keep Marquette County residents ignorant to the possibility of COVID-19 in their community for a while longer, so they could avoid having to field calls from concerned citizens, but that preference did not give them authority to hunt down and eradicate inconvenient Instagram posts.”
An interesting example of libel that harms reputation within a social community, rather than professional or business reputation.
"When ordinary people without legal training receive a demand from a government agency to produce tax returns and evidence justifying their business activities, a natural reaction is some degree of apprehension and defensiveness. Such concern is sensible because the transaction costs of dealing with a government investigation are never zero."
So holds a federal district court.
“Evidence about Penn’s treatment of other tenure candidates will be at the heart of the parties’ arguments.”
The lawsuit argues the mandate leads to discrimination based on content of speech and type of speaker.
Court dismisses Ice Cube's trademark lawsuit over Robinhood's use of his image and of a version of his "Check you self before you wreck yo self" line.
The defendant is accused of spraying Portland police officers with bear spray at a protest outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.
An interesting prior restraint case now being litigated in the Hawaii Supreme Court.
The law's "vagueness permits those in power to weaponize its enforcement against any group who wishes to express any message that the government disapproves of," Judge Mark Eaton Walker warns.
So says the Seventh Circuit, agreeing with an earlier Second Circuit decision.
Free speech and occupational licensing collide.
Plus: "The endless catastrophe of Rikers Island," studies link luxury rentals and affordable housing, and more...
People doubt the government's role as a protector but send mixed messages about their value of freedom.
Judge said she has concerns that the government crossed the line several times.
Maryland satire paper threatened over "OlneyFans" article, big tech companies "on the butcher's table," and more...
Extremists on the left and the right are much closer to each other than either side would like to admit.
The bill—focused on speech outside vaccination centers (except labor protests)—just passed both houses of the Legislature, and is waiting for Governor Newsom's signature.
That was the justification for a trial court order, which the North Carolina Court of Appeals has just reversed.
The defendants are not on trial for child sex trafficking, yet prosecutor Reggie Jones wouldn't stop talking about it.
Now they'll have to explain to a federal judge how this isn't a violation of the First Amendment.
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