Court Strikes Down California Limits on Personalized License Plates "Offensive to Good Taste and Decency"
With talk of QUEER, 69, AF, OG, "guns, weaponry, shooting, or an instrument normally used to inflict harm," and more.
With talk of QUEER, 69, AF, OG, "guns, weaponry, shooting, or an instrument normally used to inflict harm," and more.
"He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia."
Plus: National Labor Relations Board rules against The Federalist, France is getting less free, and more...
Seems quite inconsistent with basic academic freedom principles.
A court order, in Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, on its face seems to command all Internet services to remove material that mentions the daughter (Kelly Hyman), or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).
An interesting, though unsurprising, decision in a case brought by prominent Russian businessmen over the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
The University rightly responds: "At the core of this demand is a disconnect between the law and First Amendment freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution, and the desire by many in the campus community to punish those whose comments are hurtful to others."
So says the Delaware Court of Chancery: "If the information currently redacted remains so, the public will have no means to understand the dispute MetTel has asked the Court to adjudicate."
Louisiana is one of about a dozen states that has a criminal libel statute; my sense is that, throughout the country, there are likely about 20-30 criminal libel prosecutions per year.
"So what?." asks David Harsanyi at the National Review, quite correctly.
Richard Stengel published that argument in the Washington Post last year.
But what one side likes, the other side hates. There's no way Twitter and Facebook can appease them both.
That's Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.), holding that a N.Y. restriction on live music was unconstitutional.
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.