It's Dangerous to Allow Politicians and Officials to Decide What Constitutes 'Truth'
"Governments realize that they are in an existential battle over who controls information."
"Governments realize that they are in an existential battle over who controls information."
The article explains why SB 8 potentially poses a threat to constitutional rights far beyond the abortion context, and how future court decisions could potentially mitigate it.
"The only crime of most of us was that we were Uyghur Muslims," says Ziyawudun.
Kimberlin is also known for having accused Dan Quayle of having bought marijuana from him, and has since become a frequent litigant, including against bloggers Patrick Frey (Patterico), Aaron Walker, and others.
The court doesn't reach the question whether the speech was a true threat, but concludes that it couldn't be punished on the rationale that it caused substantial disruption to a public high school.
The officers originally received qualified immunity, meaning Timpa's estate had no right to state their case before a jury.
Or, to be precise, her lawyers must do so.
Yes, says a federal court, partly because this particular challenge (to a policy “which only allowed religious exemptions for those individuals who are members of organized religions whose teachings entirely forbid vaccinations”) appears to be purely legal in nature.
Another example of how badly split courts are on pseudonymity questions.
It's easy for many people to see the harm that guns are involved in every day in America, but much harder for them to see the harm that gun prohibition causes.
A new study of 915 childhood COVID-19 hospitalizations found that most involved underlying conditions.
“especially a law enforcement officer acting according to their official responsibilities.”
"A person cannot confer [the privilege for fair report of court filings] upon himself by making the original defamatory publication himself and then reporting to other people what he had stated"
"[N]early every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing.... But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff's speech."
If it is upheld, state legislators easily could use the strategy embodied in S.B. 8 to attack other rights the Supreme Court has recognized.
For decades, libertarians have focused on illiberalism coming from the political left. But authoritarianism has taken root among many conservatives across the world.
It's bad public policy to leap to the conclusion that we do.
If so, should that be because his "stellar reputation is a critical component to ensuring the public's trust for him to operate on their children for complex procedures"?
Despite bipartisan momentum at the federal level, Congress still couldn't get anything over the finish line.
but the minors involved (including the accused students) will be pseudonymized.
That's the law in Delaware, it turns out.
Also, "He also reported that in 2012, he had thought about amassing enough classified information to give to Russia or the Ukraine in exchange for a harem of little girls."
"[I]f the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
"[T]he Fourth Amendment applies equally whether the government official is a police officer conducting a criminal investigation or a caseworker conducting a civil child welfare investigation."
While this is a problem, it's not one that scrapping Section 230 would solve.
It sucked for avoidable reasons.
Politicians and cops found creative ways to dodge responsibility in 2021.
That's the issue raised by a newly filed federal lawsuit.
So holds the court in a libel lawsuit brought by Jerry Falwell, Jr.'s former personal trainer.
Should the no-fly list include another 70 million Americans?
The bills call for reforms that would be nearly impossible to implement and will not prevent a repeat of 2020.
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