Some More on Expert Witnesses in Libel Lawsuits
Former Congressman Alan Grayson, now running for the Senate in Florida, is producing some interesting caselaw.
Former Congressman Alan Grayson, now running for the Senate in Florida, is producing some interesting caselaw.
"No matter how deplorable the plaintiff finds the defendant's remarks, the First Amendment precludes civil liability for the remarks in order to protect the right to free and robust debate on matters of public concern, which the origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus plainly is."
A state law bans it -- but that law is very likely unconstitutional (though a different version of such a ban would have been constitutional).
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
The libertarianish Colorado Democrat is devolving decision-making to parents and trying to lower the income tax to zero.
The forgotten abortion politics of the pre-Roe era
Plus: Lawsuit against Twitter can move forward, antitrust bills targeting Big Tech falter, and more...
For libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo.
International tensions empower politicians seeking to force the unwilling into government service.
That fact doesn't necessarily justify overruling Roe. Depending on how it's viewed, the history of such reversals may even counsel against further such moves.
cutting back on what seemed like a categorical prohibition on anti-libel injunctions from a 1978 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case.
Atlantic writer Jerusalem Demsas argues that blue states can't give "refuge" to people fleeing abortion restrictions if they don't cut back on zoning restrictions that lead to sky-high housing costs.
Very likely no, if the clerk is domiciled in D.C. or Maryland (and pretty likely no if in Virginia), if the stated factual background is accurate.
Plus: The push to abolish the Senate, Feds hike interest rates by 0.5 percent, and more...
It wasn't just autocrats who were frequently tempted to address "fake news" about the pandemic through state pressure and coercion.
Various experts, including co-blogger Josh Blackman and myself, discuss whether the draft opinion would threaten other constitutional rights, if adopted by the Court.
The answer to this important question is highly uncertain. I tentatively predict a significant, but still modest, increase in abortion-driven migration.
Does returning decisions about abortion to the states increase liberty or shrink it?
Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.
Fewer Americans would be forced to live under a legal regime, imposed from on high, that is contrary to their convictions on a matter of life and death.
A district court just allowed a First Amendment challenge to this policy to go forward.
Plus: How abortion used to be less partisan, NFT sales have plummeted, and more...
The alarm aroused by the Disinformation Governance Board is understandable given the administration’s broader assault on messages it considers dangerous.
Abortion is likely to remain legal in most states, and workarounds will mitigate the effects of bans.
Anthony Novak's arrest and subsequent lawsuit set up a debate around overcriminalization and free speech.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
If the leaker's identity is ever revealed, he or she will face serious professional and reputational sanctions. There's no need to wish for criminal punishments too.
Gorsuch just penned an important pro-LGBT decision two years ago. Americans are largely not interested in relitigating this issue.
This “unprecedented crisis for democracy” is neither unprecedented nor a crisis for democracy.
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions.
But the leaked opinion is not “the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
Plus: Boston rebuked for rejecting Christian flag, Google will remove more personal information, and more...
A “30-by-50-foot flag saying, ‘TRUMP 2020 Keep America Great’” was therefore wrongly forbidden by the City of Buffalo (Minnesota).
"Government restrictions came in, which literally shut us down," says Paul Smith, who co-owns Red Stag Tattoo in Austin, Texas.
So the Supreme Court held this morning, though it made clear that a city could pick and choose which flags it flies, if it makes clear that the flags are its own speech.
The justices unanimously agree that the city was not endorsing the flags, and that therefore it couldn’t exclude religious organizations.
Alejandro Mayorkas fails to inspire much confidence in the new group run by Nina Jankowicz.
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