Federal court holds that documents accompanying motions are presumptively accessible even if the case settles before the court decides the motion.
"The only people who broke the law here were the police officers and TBI agents who participated in this flagrantly unconstitutional arrest."
And can't "participate in any protests, rallies or demonstrations."
And, if so, what does this mean for 47 U.S.C. § 230?
"These allegations stand at the heart of plaintiffs' claims, and sealing them would make this litigation virtually incomprehensible to the public."
What went wrong at the outlet he co-founded, what's wrong with the ACLU, and what might go wrong in the Biden administration
The Ohio S. Ct. will take up the question, in the Cincinnati prior restraint case in which we filed an amicus brief.
"The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force ..., the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech ... to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means."
The First Amendment should not be a viable defense in an impeachment trial
Both Hawley's "national conservatism" and similar ideas prevalent in many quarters on the left threaten free speech and liberty more generally.
A nice line, though said in a narrow context (whether Facebook's decision not to remove comments from a government agency's page is relevant to whether the government agency could delete them).
A controversy at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Frightening events create openings for attacks on civil liberties.
A rejoinder to Josh Blackman and Seth Tillman.
The First Amendment doesn't come with an exception for "disinformation."
No, says Techdirt's Mike Masnick, but it is cause for expanding Section 230 and building a more decentralized internet.
Unlike the cancellation of Josh Hawley’s book, such criminal charges pose a real threat to freedom of speech.
We need an open digital commons, where individuals maintain ownership of their own identities and where speech is highly resistant to political pressure.
The impeachment article against the president cites a little-discussed section of the 14th Amendment.
An interesting illustration of the "non-trademark use" doctrine.
Plus: Supreme Court declines more election challenges, Lisa Montgomery gets temporary stay of execution, and more...
"We should be wary of corporate power over political speech."
"This book will not be on our store shelves, and we will not promote it. That said, it will remain in our online catalogue."
High government officials don't have a First Amendment right to be protected from firing based on their political views. That applies to presidents facing impeachment no less than other officials.
Under federal law, incitement to riot does not include "advocacy of ideas" or "expression of belief" unless it endorses violence, which Trump did not do.
Plus: Trump concedes on reinstated Twitter account, Cabinet resignations keep coming, and more...
Plus: National Association of Manufacturers calls on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, Trump's response to the riot, and more...
"When I started my blog," says journalist Yoani Sánchez, "it was like an exorcism of something that was inside of me."
We’ve filed an amicus brief supporting a motion to dismiss the charges.
Contrary to what the judge who blocked his extradition implied, the Espionage Act does not include an exception for "responsible" journalism.
Yes, the Ohio Court of Appeals held Thursday.
The judge had earlier ordered search engines and web sites to remove materials about a employment discrimination lawsuit.
If this decision stands, then the Supreme Court wouldn't have a chance to reconsider the N.Y. Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" requirement in this case (not that it was likely to in any event).
Twitter's labeling, John Paul Mac Isaac contends, implicitly accused him of being a hacker, and was therefore libel.
