The majority reads the statute broadly, and holds it's unconstitutionally overbroad; the dissent would read it more narrowly, as limited to constitutionally unprotected solicitation of specific criminal conduct.
The Institute for Justice urges SCOTUS to renounce that open-ended exception to the Fourth Amendment.
A conservative argues today's left is channeling Puritan theocrats when they try to prevent us from enjoying ourselves. Is he correct?
The risk of broad and overcautious policies is one we should take more seriously.
The Supreme Court still refuses to weigh in on the issue.
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.
And, even more exciting, there’s personal jurisdiction thrown in.
The D.C. Circuit so held, concluding that the FCC regulation exceeded its powers under the federal Communications Act.
A good illustration of how many courts deal with personal jurisdiction in libel cases.
Good thing Zak Smith had lawyer characters with 18 Tort Law Acumen.
While gun control enthusiasts rushed to defend Japan's firearm restrictions after Shinzo Abe's assassination, copying that approach in the U.S. is legally, politically, and practically impossible.
Antiabortion activists are the new Anthony Comstocks.
Is negligently providing information to a dangerous person comparable to negligently entrusting a gun to a dangerous person (assuming a reasonable person would have realized the person was dangerous)?
The surveillance state’s appetite for sensitive information is dangerous under any flag.
The book may never achieve the cultural recognition of some other top censorship targets, but the fight over I Am Jazz symbolizes America's trans moral panic.
Dedication to free speech is in short supply around the world, with Britain and Canada previously considering similar bills.
An obscure Supreme Court case provides a roadmap through the curricular culture war.
Defendants include a DHS employee and a retired DHS law enforcement agent.
Residents of Nogales are now under the gaze of a round-the-clock surveillance craft.
Some states promptly eliminated subjective standards, while others refused to recognize the decision's implications.
Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
“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.”
The split in the cases grows.
Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks sues a company that's in the business of delivering "chocolate Dick[s]," "offensive 5 inch chocolate phallus[es] with no redeeming social qualities, whatsoever."
How school board members lashed out against dirty words
Plus a nice catalog of how high the bar can be for punishable threats under New York law.
Social media platforms may marginally support free speech. Government censors are trying to stop that.
An interesting threats case, from the Louisiana Court of Appeal
I asked scholars, podcasters, and passersby how they'd change the nation's founding charter. Here's what they told me.
A new history, Dirty Pictures, explores how underground comix revolutionized art and exploded censorship once and for all.
New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now for subscribers.
