Some Thoughts on the Avenatti v. Fox News Libel Lawsuit
Past perfect, libel-proof plaintiffs, substantial truth, “actual malice,” statutes of limitations, and more.
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.
"The state may restrict a convicted felon's right ... to possess a firearm," so a state may order a civil case defendant to stop saying things online about plaintiff that "severe[ly] emotional distress" that plaintiff.
"Plaintiffs decided to file a publicly available case and then ask the Court to protect them because defendant might say horrible things about them throughout the course of this litigation.... But harsh words are not a basis to seal a case, especially where it appears that both sides have no qualms about tearing each other down."
But unlike the Sedition Act of 1798, the federal seditious conspiracy statute doesn't focus on antigovernment speech (such as alleged lies about the government).
The AG is threatening criminal prosecution because the videos allegedly contain "false and misleading information" about Michigan elections' vulnerability to fraud.
So holds a Minnesota trial court, because ordinary public access is precluded as a result of the epidemic.
"Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the code they must draft to comply with the Dealer Law communicates substantively with the user of the program" and thus implicates the First Amendment.
so long as the user's true identity is unknown to the audience, and the pseudonym has no "legally cognizable independent reputation" (as when the pseudonym is used by an author to sell books).
(1) Black Lives Matter demonstrations. (2) Trump-fans-vs.-Biden-bus demonstrations.
A new lawsuit says the state's electioneering statutes violate the First Amendment.
The Court avoids, at least for now, the First Amendment question by instructing the Fifth Circuit to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to decide whether Louisiana state law even allows negligence liability in the case.
Kindly Inquisitors author Jonathan Rauch on the never-ending battle to defend free speech
Judge Susan Brnovich said no reasonable person would question her impartiality just because her husband already says they're guilty.
Speech First, a pro-campus-free-speech advocacy group, can go on with its challenge to UT-Austin's speech codes—and the panel strongly suggests those codes (backed by anonymous reporting to the Campus Climate Response Team) are unconstitutional.
"The Court cannot punish or hold Defendants liable merely for publishing a summary of Plaintiff's disciplinary action and their commentary about that decision."
A good illustration of a basic principle: Facts are not protected by copyright.
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
Prof. Steven Lubet (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) has an excellent analysis.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me, whether applied to pro-Trump T-shirts (as in a recently-filed lawsuit) or to other such material.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals rightly reverses.
Including from Above The Law, Jonathan Turley, PopeHat, Simple Justice, TechDirt, Reuters, Bloomberg, L.A. Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and more.
Treating free expression like an instrument of power means that the fight is more about who gets punished most when politicians write new restrictions.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Part three in Reason's documentary series, "Cypherpunks Write Code," tells the story of the U.S. government's long battle to keep strong cryptography out of the hands of its citizens
"In nearly all civil and criminal litigation ..., one party asserts that the allegations leveled against it by another party are patently false"; but "if the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
Democrats and Republicans agree on that point, although they disagree about what it means in practice.
over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10