A controversy at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Yes, the Ohio Court of Appeals held Thursday.
The more that big social media companies act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.
But such a ban would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, whether applied to the Confederate flag, white supremacist symbols, or whatever else might be labeled as "hate[ful]."
Richard Stengel published that argument in the Washington Post last year.
The subject of the new film Mighty Ira explains why social justice warriors are wrong to attack free speech.
Inspired by Germany's notorious hate-speech law, more countries seek to impose steep penalties on platforms that don't comply with their censorship whims.
(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.
The professor, 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.
A thought experiment that came to my mind; I'd love to hear what others think about it.
Plus a new draft law review article on the subject, by Prof. Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law School), a leading scholar of race and the law, and me.
Three interesting opinions: a sound majority, a plausible concurrence, and another concurrence focused on "hate speech" that I think is unsound.
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
threatens to kick students out of class for "othering." Fortunately, the university has stepped in and rejected this position.
The case was filed against the Maricopa County Community College District, over Prof. Nicholas Damask's World Politics class.
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.
This one focuses on student groups that get funding from public colleges, but it's an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
"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."
... they apparently shed it well before the schoolhouse gate.
before UK independent press standards tribunal.
I, however, do not apologize.
Don't the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?
A word that appears >10,000 times in court cases, in a wide range of fields -- yet some insist that law professors not be allowed to quote it.
The plaintiffs are claiming, among other things, "group libel."
"At a time when hate and bias incidents are on the rise, it is crucial that the state not remove these types of prohibitions that deter or punish this unacceptable behavior."
"Say what you will about ISIS but at least they're not Islamophobic." Journalist Andrew Doyle has created the ultimate parody account.
This is the case in which two students were walking near UConn student housing, loudly shouting "nigger" (apparently after having decided that loudly shouting "penis" wasn't good enough).
This latest social media freakout has prompted a formal military investigation.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks