"Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is 'a mess,' 'incomplete,' not 'fleshed out for digital,' 'the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,' and 'full of holes like Swiss cheese.'"
The case involved a public records request to identify the "six or seven pretty big legal conservative heavyweights" whom Gov. DeSantis labeled as "trusted advisors for his judicial appointments to the Florida Supreme Court."
The court concludes the pastor's posts were about the activists' organization (Oklahomans for Equality) and not about them personally; it thus avoided having to decide whether the First Amendment would have protected the speech if it was indeed about the activists personally.
The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for officials to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."
The plaintiffs hope to "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
Officials suspend efforts to force X to suppress the world’s access to video of a crime.
A new law will make it much harder to film law enforcement officers in their public duties. Does that violate the First Amendment?
The transit authority was sued after rejecting an ad that directed viewers to go to a website "to find out about the faith of our founders."
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
"[T]he only support for Defendant's statements about Plaintiff is that Defendant's 'spiritual investigation' into the murders using 'intuitive tarot readings' led her to Plaintiff."
Yes, when the restriction is being imposed by the government.
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
Bhattacharya explains the stakes of Murthy v. Missouri, the politicization of medical research, and his RFK Jr. endorsement.
European speech regulations reach way too far to muzzle perfectly acceptable content.
Harvard is taking steps away from politicization. Will other schools follow?
Protesters came back to Columbia during reunion weekend. Palestinians tried to share their tragedies amidst the carnival-like atmosphere of campus politics.
Students have a constitutional right to refuse to say the Pledge of Allegiance, no matter what school officials think.
The University of Texas is just one campus that has seen police arrest pro-Palestine demonstrators.
Chief executives' illicit motives can render their subordinates' actions unconstitutional. There is good reason for courts to enforce that rule.
Even in an era of police militarization, there’s something shocking about seeing cops in riot gear on college campuses.
The ACLU, another polarizing organization, was willing to defend the NRA in court. That should tell you that some things aren't partisan.
An ideologically diverse mix of individuals and organizations supports a Texas journalist who was arrested for asking questions.
notwithstanding the claim that it “invites worldwide haters to threaten, stalk, and commit violence against” her.
Following months of campus protests over the war between Israel and Hamas, the university has announced that it will no longer weigh in on current events.
Justin Pulliam's arrest and lawsuit once again demand we ask if "real" journalists are entitled to a different set of rights.
The free speech absolutist and co-founder of The Intercept dives deep into Israel, Latin America, and the necessity of decentralized media in the age of U.S. security state overreach.
Don’t unleash censors; restrain them more!
There's no justification for cracking down on news organizations for reporting the news during war.
"The disciplinary proceedings arose from Plaintiff's development of an 'artificial intelligence-based learning tool,' with another student, which the University's Honor Council eventually concluded 'was offensive to Emory's community standards' as it might result in academic dishonesty and cheating."
