How Non-Existent Cancel Culture Works at Princeton and Elsewhere
When a university president threatens a professor with consequences for writing an article, free expression loses out.
When a university president threatens a professor with consequences for writing an article, free expression loses out.
"The record shows nothing more than odious expressions of frustration."
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sued whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time; now there's a second settlement.
The Reason Roundtable weighs in on the latest coronavirus policy debate.
even if there's nothing at all false in the call.
The professor, the chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
... and, fortunately for me, not playing chess.
holds the Second Circuit in a case rejecting a libel lawsuit over a blog post headline.
I was one of the 153 signers and am a veteran of the Twitter wars. But even I was taken aback by the swift, virulent response.
But buried beneath the bilious response to the Harper's joint statement is a worthwhile argument about freedom of association.
Posted at the Harper's Magazine site.
keeps in place the rest of the law banning robocalls to cell phones.
Straka loses on his discrimination, cyberbullying, defamation, and breach of contract claims.
Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that the defendant didn't just create the list as a platform for others, but herself posted material about him -- though whether plaintiff ultimately prevails will depend on what discovery reveals.
"While Ms. Trump unquestionably possesses the same First Amendment expressive rights belonging to all Americans, she also possesses the right to enter into contracts, including the right to contract away her First Amendment rights." One precedent supporting that proposition: Another Trump v. Trump, a 1992 case involving Ivana Trump and Donald Trump.
Washington, D.C.'s writing "Black Lives Matter" on a street and letting others paint "Defund the Police" next to it doesn't require D.C. to let others paint messages on other streets.
Plus: Tech giants will testify in Congressional antitrust hearing, Seattle police clear out CHOP, and more...
So says a Third Circuit panel, though other circuits disagree.
This one focuses on student groups that get funding from public colleges, but it's an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
The Souls of Yellow Folk author says a new "elite consensus" fixated on racial outrage is forming and may destroy our ability to function.
"Hate speech" would be defined as an intentional "insulting statement about a group of persons because of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or physical, mental or intellectual disability."
Can the government compel speech? For Supreme Court justices, that seems to depend on the content of that speech.
"To survive as a ... professor requires constant self-censorship and compromise, especially in the humanities .... Resistance comes at a cost .... [H]er colleague ..., a law professor, was interrogated and suspended from teaching after publishing a series of essays critical of ...."
Rep. Devin Nunes can't hold Twitter liable for allegedly defamatory posts by Twitter user:
Plus: Time to cancel U.S. propaganda outlets, Twitch sued over sexy women, new Assange indictment, social-justice symbolism, and more...
Judge Adelman's article sharply criticizing the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit concluded, was largely permissible under the Canons of Judicial Conduct, except "the opening two sentences of the article and the criticisms of recent policy positions taken by one political party."
"Publicly expressing anger toward an elected official is not a basis for entry of an injunction. In public debate, elected officials must tolerate insulting remarks—even angry, outrageous speech—to provide breathing room for the First Amendment."
"Defendant's Yelp post about plaintiff is reasonably and best understood to be, simply, name-calling."
"Be there by 10:30, lace your shoes, wear masks and gloves. Bring hammers bricks whatever you want."
Two years of rule-flouting by elites and ordinary citizens show the unsustainability of top-down prohibition.
Former professor John Cochrane: "I spent much of my last few years of teaching afraid that I would say something that could be misunderstood and thus be offensive to someone."
He remains a tenured faculty member.
The interest in fighting age discrimination in employment doesn't trump free speech rights.
"By the looks of it, the horse is not just out of the barn—it is out of the country."
Don't lock down expression along with so much else of American society.
Not a high-level official, not a spokesperson, not an endorser -- just an ordinary person.
The decision has been promptly appealed.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10