Worse Than Sealed Court Records: Sealed Motions to Seal
A judge rightly speaks out against them.
A judge rightly speaks out against them.
As with all fair use claims, the analysis turns on the particular facts.
"unsubstantiated allegations" that are "irrelevant ... and therefore inadmissible" can be redacted from the public version of the filings.
That's a high price to pay because some politicians are angry about a little Facebook moderation.
Parsing issues at the intersection of current affairs and the world's largest religious denomination is no easy task.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) gets results.
Now do qualified immunity.
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]."
Individually and in organized groups, people are pushing back against lockdown orders.
So the First Circuit concludes, quite rightly, I think.
"While I fully support the spirit of this legislation, certain technical changes are necessary."
"The statement at issue here is plainly an opinion, albeit an unflattering one."
So the Ninth Circuit just held this morning.
Though journalists tend to despise the WikiLeaks founder, his fate could impact the future of their profession.
His Trump toadying was absolutely awful, but still not nearly as bad as his unremittingly harsh approach to justice and policing.
The same logic could apply when churches, synagogues, mosques, bookstores, gun stores, fur stores, and similar places are targeted by their enemies. We've filed an amicus brief before the Georgia Court of Appeals, in support of getting the verdict reversed.
"Both religion and theatre implicate the exercise of First Amendment rights, and the prioritization of religious events over secular artistic events that enjoy First Amendment free speech protection raises potentially thorny questions."
"This Court cannot be a party ... to such a deception." So holds a federal Magistrate Judge in rejecting the parties' joint motion to seal the complaint in the case, after it had been settled.
Authoritarian-minded officials have found opportunity in public health fears.
Plus: Vaccine distribution begins, stimulus talks continue, and more...
"We certainly would not fault a trial judge's desire to ensure public safety. But judicial concern, understandable as it may be, does not confer judicial power."
So held a federal judge, I think correctly, interpreting those particular statutes, in a lawsuit against United Airlines.
My response to an important new article by Scott Keller
Reason's writers and editors share their suggestions for what you should be buying your friends and family this year.
Plus: Sexual misconduct at the FBI, Tulsi Gabbard and Mike Lee don't understand the First Amendment, and more...
Will a rightward shift on the bench would result in the reversal of Obergefell? Probably not.
An American Enterprise Institute "Are You Kidding Me?" podcast episode, with Naomi Schaefer Riley, Ian Rowe, and me.
What? Is there something supposedly wrong with liking to talk a lot?
Courts ignore constitutional guarantees while defendants awaiting trial languish in jail.
Yesterday’s Socratic method post followed up today with Jungian analysis.
The plaintiff claims Apple was upset about his stance critical of censorship by the Chinese government, in the context of his reviewing the Guo Media App, established by a Chinese dissent.
Speech targeting whites, males, and Americans would be less likely to be blocked as "hate speech," the Washington Post reports.
So holds the Washington Court of Appeals.
"I am pessimistic about where this goes in the future," says the outgoing chairman, who is stepping down in January.
Words to live by from the President of the University of Chicago, in response to demands to punish a professor who spoke out against various "diversity, equity and inclusion" programs.