First Amendment Generally Protects Secret Recording of Police Officers in Public Places
So the First Circuit concludes, quite rightly, I think.
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.
We've just filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the Oregon Supreme Court to protect such equal rights, and overturn Oregon precedent that denies such rights.
Time to add a hat and sunglasses!
Real-time police spying through smart security cams is already here.
at least in the context of a Facebook squabble.
Another unconstitutionally overbroad injunction, struck down by the Florida Court of Appeal.
The outgoing FCC chairman discusses 'light-touch' regulation and the future of free speech on the internet.
Using police to forcefully shut down Mac's Public House is a violation of liberty and a waste of resources.
The Institute for Justice wants the Supreme Court to rule that the Fifth Amendment requires a prompt post-seizure hearing.
Circumstances change and the world may grow more complicated, but authoritarians never vary from their demand for more power over our lives.
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