Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech: "Stop Talking About Plaintiff" Injunctions
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m serializing a new law review article draft of mine.
The federal government weighs in on Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L..
Carlsbad City Council member Cori Schumacher had claimed the critics’ speech was threatening; no, the judge eventually held: "Simply calling these posts threats is not enough."
Is the senator's authoritarian grandstanding the dark future of the GOP?
Courts have widely upheld the First Amendment right to hurl choice words or gestures at police.
The Second Circuit held that this was a permissible viewpoint-neutral restriction on a subsidy program.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson denied qualified immunity to the officers involved in Patterson v. United States.
The Ninth Circuit decides a case involving "Rise Above Movement" white supremacists who participated in riots in California.
Democracies are going to have to do better at exercising their core liberal values to prove their worth and win back support.
One bill would require lengthy disclaimers on all online political ads.
Plus: The era of sovereign influencers, a new experiment in universal basic income, and more...
May plaintiffs alleged sexual assault proceed pseudonymously, when the defendant is being publicly named?
The libel claim, the court held, was foreclosed by an agreement settling the lawsuit that had indirectly led to the review.
The bill was introduced by Colorado Senate president pro tem Kerry Donovan (who is also running for Congress).
"[O]nce a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."
So a federal district court apparently held in Green v. Miss United States of America, LLC.
The statements about former law student Jonathan Mullane were either a fair report of court proceedings or protected by the First Amendment.
The podcast is about Charles Harrelson (actor Woody Harrelson's father), who had been convicted of murdering a federal judge
These demands obviously violate the First Amendment.
(Clare Locke LLP is one of the top plaintiff's-side libel law firms, though this isn't a libel case.)
Not sure that paying for sex makes you an "extraordinary gentleman," even if you do try to "give something back" by providing expert consumer reviews.
An interesting decision on a motion to dismiss in this libel lawsuit.
Plastic surgeon David Shifrin is suing commenters who posted negative reviews based on an ex-patient's critical YouTube video. (There are also libel claims in the lawsuit as well.)
This misguided effort to combat "misinformation" is a brazen assault on free speech.
Just like a city can allow some monuments in city parks without having to allow others.
The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its earlier precedents denying non-media speakers certain First Amendment libel law protections.
He was no libertarian, but he absorbed an important lesson about regulating speech.
My article was about Kelly Hyman v. Alex Daoud, in which a court order seemed to command all Internet "services" to remove material that mentions plaintiff or her husband (retired federal bankruptcy judge Paul Hyman).
It's the result of our overly politicized culture where many people like to shame and destroy their enemies, but it is undermining the benefits of free and open dialogue.
That's tomorrow (as I write this), 2 to 3 pm Pacific time; free, but registration required.
Behemoth frontman Adam 'Nergal' Darski was fined $5,000 for a 2019 social media post that showed him stepping on an image of the Virgin Mary.
You may have seen stories about the operation of Facebook's new and innovative "Supreme Court." Don't believe 'em.
I'm serializing a forthcoming law review article of mine.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks