There's no general federal right to them; they are often available when a law is enforced by government officials, but generally not as to laws in which private citizens sue (whether over abortion, speech, religious exercise, gun ownership or sales, or anything else).
The organization's embrace of a wide-ranging progressive agenda undermines its reason for existing.
The change stems from a First Amendment case brought by the Institute for Justice, a leading libertarian public interest law firm.
“The Very Reverend Georges F. de Laire, J.C.L., who serves as the Judicial Vicar and the Vicar for Canonical Affairs for the Diocese of Manchester, brings a defamation claim against Gary Michael Voris, Anita Carey, and St. Michael’s Media, Inc. a/k/a Church Militant.”
though an arbitrator reduced this to a 40-day suspension.
"The undersigned finds that despite Mr. Caggiano's belief that his post makes an important point [criticizing] Bernie Sanders, the undersigned finds that it can be logically read to be patently offensive, discriminatory, and degrading to women."
"The letter condemns Satel for having 'the audacity to challenge Reverend Al Sharpton, an exemplary individual and activist.'"
Harvey, who died last week, dedicated his life to supporting human pleasure along with the power to manage it responsibly.
The conversation will be about Prof. Strossen's Journal of Free Speech Law article, "The Interdependence of Racial Justice and Free Speech for Racists," and it will be with Profs. Jane Bambauer, Ash Bhagwat, and me.
A discussion with Prof. RonNell Andersen Jones (Utah), two noted media lawyers and clinical teachers (Prof. Dale Cohen, UCLA, and Prof. Gregg Leslie, Arizona State), and me about this forthcoming Journal of Free Speech Law article.
Our videos make the case for "Free Minds and Free Markets" to millions of people a year.
Gov. Greg Abbott attacks First Amendment rights in the name of defending them.
The law is unconstitutional as written—but it has also been used by prosecutors far beyond its specific terms.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
"Given the charged atmosphere concerning vaccinations and vaccine mandates, and for the other reasons discussed above, the Court is persuaded that this is the rare case where a party should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously."
It's with Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Daphne Keller (Stanford), and Mark Lemley (Stanford), moderated by Jane Bambauer (Arizona).
An important and interesting question, arising here as to Title IX, free speech, and due process, but relevant more generally as well (and now pending before the Supreme Court).
The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal.
A school board official told said "students would not participate in a book-club event scheduled for February with Nadia Murad, a Nobel Prize-winner and activist," because "Ms. Murad’s book, 'The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State,' would foster Islamophobia."
Florida passed a law to stop big tech “censorship.” But the law itself tramples First Amendment rights.
No, because courts conclude that those terms are just opinions and name-calling.
The official was the Vice President for Student Affairs and Diversity at the University of North Dakota.
Are universities supposed to have institutional views on the facts about self-defense in a case half a continent way?
We talk about blogging, social media and free speech, the Religion Clauses, and federalism and individual rights.
The newspaper wrongly implies that press freedom is limited to "real" journalists.
“UNOS’s reasoning boils down to a desire to keep indiscreet communications out of the public eye, which is not enough to satisfy our standard for good cause.”
From leading liberal constitutional law professor Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern), in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
"Representatives of a public entity taking the opportunity to squelch plaintiffs' views as apostasy"; the squelching was partly based on claims that certain remarks are "abusive and coded in racist terms, also known as 'dog whistles,'" and that "comments about the District's equity survey" were "'irrelevant' to the meeting agenda item of the District's equity policy."
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
