"Plaintiffs decided to file a publicly available case and then ask the Court to protect them because defendant might say horrible things about them throughout the course of this litigation.... But harsh words are not a basis to seal a case, especially where it appears that both sides have no qualms about tearing each other down."
But unlike the Sedition Act of 1798, the federal seditious conspiracy statute doesn't focus on antigovernment speech (such as alleged lies about the government).
The AG is threatening criminal prosecution because the videos allegedly contain "false and misleading information" about Michigan elections' vulnerability to fraud.
According to the government, a law aimed at helping victims like King prevents him from holding his assailants accountable.
So holds a Minnesota trial court, because ordinary public access is precluded as a result of the epidemic.
Portland’s protesters aren’t going to fade away after the election, but are they stuck in a rut?
"Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the code they must draft to comply with the Dealer Law communicates substantively with the user of the program" and thus implicates the First Amendment.
Constitutional amendment overwhelmingly passes.
so long as the user's true identity is unknown to the audience, and the pseudonym has no "legally cognizable independent reputation" (as when the pseudonym is used by an author to sell books).
(1) Black Lives Matter demonstrations. (2) Trump-fans-vs.-Biden-bus demonstrations.
American voters have the chance to usher in a few libertarian policies this election, courtesy of these state ballot measures.
A new lawsuit says the state's electioneering statutes violate the First Amendment.
The French Revolution has long inspired progressive radicals ready for change at any cost.
The case doesn't make any change in legal doctrine. But it may be intended to send a message to lower courts.
The Court avoids, at least for now, the First Amendment question by instructing the Fifth Circuit to ask the Louisiana Supreme Court to decide whether Louisiana state law even allows negligence liability in the case.
The surveillance whistleblower has a child on the way and little sign a pardon is forthcoming.
Plus: Fate of Texas drive-thru ballots still uncertain, exposure to diverse news sources is up, Oregon may lessen penalties for possessing drugs, and more...
How seriously should we take the threats of protesters who recently built guillotines outside of Jeff Bezos' house?
Kindly Inquisitors author Jonathan Rauch on the never-ending battle to defend free speech
Judge Susan Brnovich said no reasonable person would question her impartiality just because her husband already says they're guilty.
Speech First, a pro-campus-free-speech advocacy group, can go on with its challenge to UT-Austin's speech codes—and the panel strongly suggests those codes (backed by anonymous reporting to the Campus Climate Response Team) are unconstitutional.
Walter Wallace's family says the officers could have defused the situation without using lethal force.
"The Court cannot punish or hold Defendants liable merely for publishing a summary of Plaintiff's disciplinary action and their commentary about that decision."
The National Security Agency arranged for security systems to be secretly compromised. Then the Chinese government allegedly found its way in.
Who could have predicted that intolerable rules won’t be tolerated?
A good illustration of a basic principle: Facts are not protected by copyright.
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
Privacy is a right, not a “high risk” and “possibly criminal” activity
The state legislature is considering reforms in response to the use of dogs against cooperative suspects.
Prof. Steven Lubet (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) has an excellent analysis.
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos on schooling during COVID-19, the future of higher ed, and why her cabinet department probably shouldn't exist at all
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me, whether applied to pro-Trump T-shirts (as in a recently-filed lawsuit) or to other such material.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals rightly reverses.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
