Mother Forbidden from Mentioning Her Own Name in Criticizing Custody Decision—and the Penn. S. Ct. Upholds This
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court 5-2 majority concludes that the injunction is "content-neutral," quite erroneously, I think.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court 5-2 majority concludes that the injunction is "content-neutral," quite erroneously, I think.
Don't just file the document unsealed, and then ask for sealing
Former Executive Director Ira Glasser discusses the past, present, and increasingly shaky future of free speech.
Xinjiang Jin (also known as Julien Jin) is being charged with conspiring to ... cause "substantial emotional distress" to people, under the "cyberstalking" statute.
A judge rightly speaks out against them.
As with all fair use claims, the analysis turns on the particular facts.
"unsubstantiated allegations" that are "irrelevant ... and therefore inadmissible" can be redacted from the public version of the filings.
That's a high price to pay because some politicians are angry about a little Facebook moderation.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) gets results.
But such a ban would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, whether applied to the Confederate flag, white supremacist symbols, or whatever else might be labeled as "hate[ful]."
So the First Circuit concludes, quite rightly, I think.
"While I fully support the spirit of this legislation, certain technical changes are necessary."
"The statement at issue here is plainly an opinion, albeit an unflattering one."
So the Ninth Circuit just held this morning.
Though journalists tend to despise the WikiLeaks founder, his fate could impact the future of their profession.
The same logic could apply when churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, fur stores, and similar places are targeted by their enemies. We've filed an amicus brief before the Georgia Court of Appeals, in support of getting the verdict reversed.
"Both religion and theatre implicate the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the prioritization of religious events over secular artistic events that enjoy First Amendment free speech protection raises potentially thorny questions."
"This Court cannot be a party ... to such a deception." So holds a federal Magistrate Judge in rejecting the parties' joint motion to seal the complaint in the case, after it had been settled.
So held a federal judge, I think correctly, interpreting those particular statutes, in a lawsuit against United Airlines.
Plus: Sexual misconduct at the FBI, Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Lee don't understand the First Amendment, and more...
An American Enterprise Institute "Are You Kidding Me?" podcast episode, with Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and me.
What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?
Yesterday’s Socratic method post followed up today with Jungian analysis.
The plaintiff claims Apple was upset about his stance critical of censorship by the Chinese government, in the context of his reviewing the Guo Media App, established by a Chinese dissent.
Speech targeting whites, males, and Americans would be less likely to be blocked as "hate speech," the Washington Post reports.
So holds the Washington Court of Appeals.
"I am pessimistic about where this goes in the future," says the outgoing chairman, who is stepping down in January.
Words to live by from the President of the University of Chicago, in response to demands to punish a professor who spoke out against various "diversity, equity and inclusion" programs.
We've just filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Oregon Supreme Court to protect such equal rights, and overturn Oregon precedent that denies such rights.
at least in the context of a Facebook squabble.
Another unconstitutionally overbroad injunction, struck down by the Florida Court of Appeal.
The outgoing FCC chairman discusses 'light-touch' regulation and the future of free speech on the internet.
Earlier in November, surveillance footage captured officers beating a man for not wearing a mask.
So a district court suggests in a challenge to a Texas statute that limits drone photography that "surveil[s]" private property—but that exempts similar surveillance by academics and certain others,
A company had a trademark canceled in a Trademark Trial & Appeal Board proceeding, based on what the Board described as the company's "delaying tactics, including the willful disregard of Board orders." The TTABlog posted about it, and some commenters criticized the company's lawyer, who sued them for libel.
The decision should also support secular private schools having similar rights as well. (Public schools are under control of the state government, and lack First Amendment rights against it.)