An important principle, which also applies to uses of trademarked terms in films, books, video games, and the like: "A party does not violate trademark law solely by using words another entity has trademarked."
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is almost always going to be "no." But some compensation may be morally imperative, even if not legally required.
The California Court of Appeal reversed, in an interesting case about allegations of physical abuse—and claims that the allegations were themselves a form of "abuse."
The NYU Law professor thinks we're in for a mess of bad epidemiology, ineffective stimulus, and misguided quarantines.
Politicians seem to be proceeding on the dangerous assumption that cost-effectiveness does not matter.
The restrictions are less dangerous precisely because they are so broad and onerous.
The plaintiffs are claiming, among other things, "group libel."
The new bill takes aim at internet freedom and privacy under the pretense of saving kids.
Will coronavirus help rehabilitate tech's rep?
Why there are no "exceptions" to Article III
New York Times columnist and Decadent Society author defends prohibitionism in a conversation on The Fifth Column.
The order activates a pre-existing ordinance, which authorizes a wide range of actions, including curfews, alcohol sales, gun sales, property seizures, and more.
The Illinois Appellate Court's decision interprets the Illinois version of the RFRA, and the separate Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act (which bans all discrimination "because of [a] person's conscientious refusal to receive, obtain, accept, perform, assist, counsel, suggest, recommend, refer or participate in any way in any particular form of health care services contrary to his or her conscience").
Plague Inc. simulates the spread of coronavirus.
Fatal police shootings and the Fourth Amendment
A case decided Monday reaffirms this principle, especially in the Seventh Circuit.
Some Republican senators are working hard to get Trump behind stronger fixes.
Plus: A second person appears to be cured of HIV, cops can destroy your home for no reason and refuse to pay, and more...
at least under the Illinois "innocent construction" rule, under which "a nondefamatory interpretation must be adopted if it is reasonable"—"a reasonable reading of Lorenz's article is that although Wedgewood communicated with underage girls, he never meant to take things further."
A new lawsuit is challenging the California DMV's rejection of allegedly offensive personalized license plates.
The extent of state and federal quarantine powers is surprisingly unsettled.
Privacy activists on the left and the right decry a limp set of proposed changes to the USA Freedom Act.
Probably, if it's limited to knowing falsehoods (or perhaps statements where the speaker knows they are probably false).
"I would rather be remembered for writing something that was...offensive, than to be forgotten for writing something bloodless."
No amount of money can buy victory for candidates who fail to persuade voters.
The presidential contender has trouble explaining why the guns he wants to ban fall outside the Second Amendment.
When it comes to guns, pretty much nothing is legal in New Jersey, according to their police.
In light of this, should the presumptive First Amendment right of access to court cases require the court to provide video coverage of hearings?
The USA Freedom Act is about to sunset. Who will decide how and if it will be changed?
The EARN IT is an attack on encryption masquerading as a blow against underage porn.
Not that I'm suggesting it, but it's an interesting con law hypo.
An interesting 1969 case (based on a publication right after the 1968 election), reversed on appeal in 1974; thanks to Jacob Gershman (Wall St. J.) for letting me know about it.
The Supreme Court weighs abortion regulation in June Medical Services v. Russo.
The Senate minority leader threatened two justices by name, and then he lied about it.
Plus: Judge rejects Gabbard's Google lawsuit, Bloomberg drops out, and more...
A bizarre Florida “red flag” case shows the importance of safeguards that protect people’s Second Amendment rights.
"Google is not now, nor (to the Court's knowledge) has it ever been, an arm of the United States government," wrote District Judge Stephen Wilson.
to try to vanish online magazine article about him.
"I was, at the time, very scared."
District Attorney Jackie Lacey faces re-election today against a tough field calling for more criminal justice reforms.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks