"In Massachusetts, we have recently seen multiple incidents of groups espousing deeply offensive and hurtful ideologies displayed on our streets."
Dedication to free speech is in short supply around the world, with Britain and Canada previously considering similar bills.
“Defendants cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words ‘harass’ and ‘hate’ when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context.”
Its operative provisions just require social media platforms to create a mechanism for taking complaints about such "hateful" speech; but the title is "hateful conduct prohibited," and it's clear the legislature is trying to get social media platforms to restrict such speech more.
David Kopel at the National Firearms Law Seminar
The result might have been different "if plaintiff's speech had occurred off-campus."
In response to the Buffalo massacre, Gov. Kathy Hochul invoked a hoary analogy to justify censorship.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, in sending back to a different judge defendant's motion to retroactively downgrade her conviction (for non-slur resistance to the officers) to a misdemeanor.
A new history of free speech argues the best way to defeat hate speech is by openly confronting it in the public square.
In the new book Free Speech, the Danish activist defends radical self-expression from Socrates to social media.
A Scottish man was just convicted for tweeting an insult about a dead person. The authorities already have too much power to censor.
In The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder, the legendary First Amendment lawyer exposes the tricks of today's "anti-free speech movement."
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 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.
The law is unconstitutional as written—but it has also been used by prosecutors far beyond its specific terms.
The anti-Biden slogan is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
for saying "LGBTQ+" "Pride" message is "against our biblical doctrine."
An interesting "harassment, intimidate, or bullying" investigation case from New Jersey schools. (Corrected version of a post initially put up yesterday.)
An interesting “harassment, intimidate, or bullying” investigation case from New Jersey schools.
Attempts by British lawmakers to erase online anonymity would lead to radical speech being pushed underground.
A new analysis reportedly showing a huge proportion of TikTok content is racist tells us nothing about the overall prevalence of extremist and bigoted content on the app.
"It is crucial to ensure that prohibitions on targeting people based on protected characteristics not be construed in a manner that shields governments or institutions from criticism."
This includes "burning a national flag or religious texts, caricatures of religious figures, or criticism of ideologies."
Americans oppose restrictions, but report feeling less free to speak about political matters.
Two Illinois legislators meet with a high school principal complaining about an anti-China poster distributed by a student group, which promptly loses its faculty sponsor and has to
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
Calling a classmate a racist slur on Snapchat is offensive. It’s also protected speech.
But the "racial ridicule" statute under which this is happening (1) by its terms doesn't cover such speech, and (2) if it did, it would be unconstitutional.