No Sealing or Pseudonymity for Sexual Assault Defendant
"[I]f the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
"[I]f the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
While this is a problem, it's not one that scrapping Section 230 would solve.
It sucked for avoidable reasons.
So holds the court in a libel lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s former personal trainer.
notwithstanding the “litigation privilege,” if the statute of limitations has long passed and there is therefore no reasonable prospect of meritorious litigation.
Advice from a judge to the litigants in a libel case.
"The statements include that Hubbard ... has been 'advocating for pederasty (pedophilia) for as long as he has taught at the University of Texas.'"
and remands for retrial as to whether such a purpose would be shown.
Four courts have recently said yes, in cases brought by conservative Muslims and Christians.
"Dominion's well-pleaded allegations, however, support the reasonable inference that Fox's reporting was not accurate or dispassionate."
A white administrator is claiming she was fired based on her race, and based on her complaints that her department chair said "I despise white people" and various other things.
can go forward as to the "false light" claim, but not as to the libel claim (at least unless the plaintiff can amend his Complaint to adequately allege specific economic losses).
“The events of January 6th were an attack on the foundation of our democracy. But this does not relieve the Department of Justice from following its own guidelines, written to preserve the very same democracy.... [This case] leaves the court to wonder who watches the watchmen.”
Keeping professors from testifying in lawsuits isn't the school's only free speech problem
Federal district court holds that the First Amendment sharply limits restrictions on such professional-client speech, at least when the speech doesn’t involve “prescribing medication or reaching a diagnosis.”
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.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.