He Heckled a District Attorney on TV. Now He Faces 10 Years Behind Bars.
On Wednesday, a Massachusetts judge will decide whether Joao DePina will face the possibility of a decade behind bars for publicly criticizing a district attorney.
On Wednesday, a Massachusetts judge will decide whether Joao DePina will face the possibility of a decade behind bars for publicly criticizing a district attorney.
A new ruling says Twitter and Facebook are not “common carriers" and thus cannot be forced to carry politicians' messages.
The torturous trial calls to mind Title IX investigations on college campuses.
Civil liberties groups argue that debt-based license suspensions are unfair and illogical since they deprive people of transportation, preventing them from earning money to pay off debts.
The result might have been different "if plaintiff's speech had occurred off-campus."
Jerry Rogers Jr. complained that police hadn't solved a murder yet—and found himself in a jail cell.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
The former Associate Justice joins those condemning the leak of a draft opinion.
The Georgetown professor isn't a toy lover—he's trying to convey a philosophical idea about the nature of free will and the capacity of humans to remake the world around them.
The court so holds as a matter of the law of remedies, though I think such an order would generally be an unconstitutional prior restraint as well.
Understanding the scope of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."
A federal district court judge dismissed Lindell's counterclaims against Dominion and Smartmatic, and Lindell may still be on the hook for defamation.
The trial court reasoned: "You guys ... have a spat on Facebook.... Nobody cares about these s[p]ats. Just block them and move on."
It seems like an ambiguous episode that was handled appropriately.
Criticism of Grayson (who's now running in the 2022 Florida Senate primary) in his losing 2018 House campaign was based on "articles by independent, reputable sources," and there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that the defendants knew their statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" standard).
Plus: Twitter defends user anonymity, Oklahoma legislature approves abortion ban, and more...
Massie was the only House member to vote against a resolution demanding social media companies do more to track and suppress antisemitic content.
It's not clear which guns she is talking about, and even Collins does not seem to know.
The student's mother alleged that he had been bullied and the school district had done nothing to protect him; the teacher's aide responded in an online public discussion, saying (among other things) that the student had been doing the bullying; the parents sued.
said Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) about this amicus brief from Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) and Phillip R. Malone of the Juelsgaard I/P and Innovation Clinic (at Stanford).
Predicting violence is a lot harder than people claim in retrospect, and a wider net inevitably ensnares more innocent people.
And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.
Activist Fadi Elsalameen says U.S. aid doesn’t help Palestinians because of corruption. They need monetary freedom.
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
In response to the Buffalo massacre, Gov. Kathy Hochul invoked a hoary analogy to justify censorship.
So holds a federal district court today; striking down a Tennessee statute.
The vast majority do not have disqualifying records, and "universal" requirements are easily evaded.
A content-neutral ban on all residential picketing would be constitutional; but the "intent to harass or disturb" limitation may make the law unconstitutional or ineffective.
"The knot in getting that product into the U.S. isn't safety, it's a regulatory issue," says Peter Pitts.
Plus: The editors each point out one key disagreement they have with one another.
The law forces social media firms to host and promote speech they oppose, and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by the courts.
A federal judge ruled Monday that North Carolina bureaucrats violated the Constitution when they tried to ban a Flying Dog beer over a possible penis on the label.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! 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 thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
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