4 Things That Pissed Us Off in 2017
Serenity now.
Yes, said San Antonio police officers, arguing that a bar's license shouldn't be renewed -- "those remarks show what kind of people Bottom Bracket's owners really are and that they should not be allowed to operate a bar."
But there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.
In the Huffington Post, not usually a source of positive views on guns.
The government's theory would equally criminalize insulting posts on a NRA page, or on a pro-Trump organization's page, or on a Communist Party page.
Two recent stories in the news, plus a third item about Malaysia.
A separate holding from today's Klein v. BOLI (Sweetcakes by Melissa case), from the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upholds a $135,000 damages award imposed on Sweetcakes by Melissa for its owners' refusal to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Nobody calls himself a censor anymore in the 21st century. We've got better words for it.
The city's goal is to curb "unconscious bias." But the policy is based on dangerous premises, and is likely to harm tenants more than it benefits them.
A woman is injured in a car accident supposedly because of bad roadway design decision (a dangerous cut in the median) -- so she sues business that had lobbied county to make that decision.
Short extension of FISA snooping powers shoved into temporary spending bill.
The crew of The Post celebrates leaking the Pentagon Papers but gets all touchy when Obama's secret surveillance is mentioned.
Free speech is increasingly triggering.
Will you soon be ordered to subject yourself to even more intrusive surveillance if you travel out of the country?
Jia Yueting got an injunction from a Washington state court, forbidding critic Gu Yingqiong from "publish[ing] any posts or [online] commentary concerning" Jia.
Accountability starts at home.
So held a federal court in New Jersey yesterday (GJJM Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City).
Bruce Perens' claimed that Open Source Security's license violates the GPL open-source license agreement; that's protected opinion, the court said.
A Federal district court grants a preliminary injunction in V.A. v. San Pasqual Valley Unified School District.
The Justice Department's attempt to prosecute six anti-Trump protesters falls flat on its face, but it says more trials will follow.
The New Jersey Supreme Court narrowly construes a ban on annoying conduct to avoid First Amendment problems.
Seems inconsistent with a 1995 Supreme Court precedent, but the D.C. federal court allowed this, and the D.C. Circuit seems to agree.
Obvious propaganda should be labeled propaganda, obviously.
It turns out the Supreme Court has dealt with the question, in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975).
This FISA renewal bill would essentially gut the Fourth Amendment.
A sound decision Monday from a federal district court in Michigan.
The good news? Many whose lives they tried to ruin are now off the hook.
Senators demand discussion of protections for Americans against unwarranted snooping.
No, says the New Jersey Supreme Court in an opinion that sharply limits the state criminal harassment statute.
Sharing arrest and accident info on Facebook before cops can tell "official" media is not OK, say Laredo police-and nevermind that one of their own was the source.
Will colleges sanction every educator with a provocative opinion?
Congressional conservatives want to ban "discrimination against the unborn on the basis of sex."
So says the Hawaii Supreme Court.
So a Federal Circuit panel held today, answering a question that the Supreme Court's Slants case left open.
Can they get past the FBI vs. Trump narrative to talk about snooping on the rest of us?
As people worry about the net neutrality vote, public officials threaten our rights to free speech.
The bill would gut Section 230 and make sex advertising a federal crime.
Jury nullification has officials losing cases, changing policies, and fretting over the power of the people they often abuse.
Lower courts are split on whether sex-based protections cover orientation.
A related measure would open digital platforms to liability for past crimes committed by users.
Also on the Reason Podcast: Is abortion a good reason to vote for Roy Moore? Did Al Franken get a raw deal? Can the feds smother bitcoin?
Given the arbitrariness of federal criteria for gun ownership, the public safety benefits of background checks are dubious.
In 2017, the left eats its own and the right shows its true colors.
The FBI's handling of the Michael Flynn case is disturbing.
Feed yourself in a public park. Feed the pigeons and the squirrels there, too. Whatever you do, though, don't share your food with a hungry person.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10