Texas Court Reverses $1.2 Million Libel Decision Based on Yelp Review Complaining About Earlier Unpaid Judgment
The libel claim, the court held, was foreclosed by an agreement settling the lawsuit that had indirectly led to the review.
The libel claim, the court held, was foreclosed by an agreement settling the lawsuit that had indirectly led to the review.
More criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, and civil rights litigators may soon be appointed to the federal bench.
In Massachusetts, Malinda Harris argues, civil asset forfeiture routinely violates the right to due process.
The bill was introduced by Colorado Senate president pro tem Kerry Donovan (who is also running for Congress).
The Ending Qualified Immunity Act of 2021 would no longer let state actors violate your rights without consequence.
The court said criminalizing unknowing possession violates the right to due process.
"[O]nce a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case."
Samuel Cummings built a global weapons empire in Washington, D.C.'s shadow.
So a federal district court apparently held in Green v. Miss United States of America, LLC.
The statements about former law student Jonathan Mullane were either a fair report of court proceedings or protected by the First Amendment.
Under a bill the two senators reintroduced on Friday, all presidential emergency declarations would expire after 72 hours unless Congress votes to allow them to continue.
Angelo Quinto's family has filed a wrongful death claim.
The anti-discrimination law seems designed to divide when compromise would better serve to expand federal protections.
The state's ban on "large-capacity magazines" is easy to justify, as long as you assume its benefits and ignore its costs.
Strategic politicking, police union influence, or both?
A phone in your pocket may as well be a GPS beacon strapped to your ankle.
The justices did not address one of James King's key arguments, which the 6th Circuit will now consider.
Two women still face felony charges, though the cases against all male defendants were dropped.
The podcast is about Charles Harrelson (actor Woody Harrelson's father), who had been convicted of murdering a federal judge
These demands obviously violate the First Amendment.
(Clare Locke LLP is one of the top plaintiff's-side libel law firms, though this isn't a libel case.)
Not sure that paying for sex makes you an "extraordinary gentleman," even if you do try to "give something back" by providing expert consumer reviews.
The DIY firearms movement specifically evolved to put personal armaments beyond the reach of the government.
They need not wait for the Supreme Court or Congress to restrict or abolish qualified immunity.
An interesting decision on a motion to dismiss in this libel lawsuit.
An independent panel concludes there was no legal justification for stopping, frisking, arresting, or assaulting McClain.
An encouraging sign from the Supreme Court
Platform censorship results from centralized design. Cryptocurrency techies are building decentralized alternatives.
Plastic surgeon David Shifrin is suing commenters who posted negative reviews based on an ex-patient's critical YouTube video. (There are also libel claims in the lawsuit as well.)
Thomas is right that the doctrine is a mess. But the Court may not be in any hurry to clean it up.
The election systems company is taking its fight to the conspiratorial My Pillow CEO.
This misguided effort to combat "misinformation" is a brazen assault on free speech.
Justice Thomas dissented from denial of certiorari by himself to urge a revamp of Takings Clause jurisprudence.
Government agencies have repeatedly proven themselves to be abusive.
A sloppy panopticon is almost as dangerous as an effective one.
Just like a city can allow some monuments in city parks without having to allow others.
The ruling denies relief under a state constitutional provision requiring compensation for "taking" or "damaging" of private property by the government. Many other states have similar provisions.
The Oregon Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its earlier precedents denying non-media speakers certain First Amendment libel law protections.
A bill approved by the state House would let people sue government officials for violating rights protected by the state constitution.
He was no libertarian, but he absorbed an important lesson about regulating speech.
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