So holds a federal court, also concluding that earlier sexual discussions could likewise justify restriction in the open public comment period (treated by the law as a “limited public forum,” in which reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions are constitutional).
X's child porn detection system doesn’t violate an Illinois biometric privacy law, the judge ruled.
Numerous federal appeals courts have ruled that filming police is protected under the First Amendment, but police continue to illegally arrest people for it.
Vague rules and an unjustified raid led to Bryan Malinowski’s brutal death at the hands of federal agents.
The case hinged on the ATF’s statutory authority, not the Second Amendment.
Whatever you think of abortion, the Department of Justice's latest approach to these cases is misguided.
An early article from what will eventually be several on Information as Medicine.
Issuing a posthumous pardon for Bennett would reaffirm our nation’s commitment to free expression and intellectual freedom.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about the Selective Service.
Thanks for the heads up, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
A California trial court so ruled, and the California Court of Appeal just upheld that decision.
Facing an opponent who has been credibly described as a sexual predator, Biden instead emphasizes Trump's cover-up of a consensual encounter.
One of several interesting questions that arises in a case involving regulations of pregnancy centers that seek to help pregnant women without offering abortions or abortion counseling.
A Harvard Dean suggests universities can and should limit controversial speech.
The Selective Service should be abolished, not made more efficient and equitable.
The plaintiffs are challenging the state's widespread surveillance, which it collects through over 600 cameras.
Six justices agreed that federal regulators had misconstrued the statutory definition of a machine gun.
The justice's benign comments set off a lengthy news cycle and have been treated as a scandal by some in the media. Why?
Phoenix police are trained that "deescalation" means overwhelming and immediate force, whether or not it's necessary.
The underlying methodological debate might also bear on free speech disputes more broadly.
A "desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Court's opinion.
...as protests outside Congress escalate into violence.
Not a single justice was impressed by the unimpressive standing theories offered in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA.
"Young proffered CNN messages and emails that showed internal concern about the completeness and veracity of the reporting—the story is 'a mess,' 'incomplete,' not 'fleshed out for digital,' 'the story is 80% emotion, 20% obscured fact,' and 'full of holes like Swiss cheese.'"
You don't promote acceptance by locking people up for victimless crimes.
It is coauthored with Josh Braver.
The case involved a public records request to identify the "six or seven pretty big legal conservative heavyweights" whom Gov. DeSantis labeled as "trusted advisors for his judicial appointments to the Florida Supreme Court."
Donald Trump's acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller advocated the plan this week, which Trump later called a "ridiculous idea."
Plus: Hunter Biden is guilty of crimes that shouldn't be crimes, North Dakota's voters take on gerontocracy, and more...
The court concludes the pastor's posts were about the activists' organization (Oklahomans for Equality) and not about them personally; it thus avoided having to decide whether the First Amendment would have protected the speech if it was indeed about the activists personally.
The "most pro-life president in American history" cannot please hardline activists without alienating voters.
The president's son, who faces up to 25 years in prison for conduct that violated no one's rights, can still challenge his prosecution on Second Amendment grounds.
The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for officials to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."
The plaintiffs hope to "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
Officials suspend efforts to force X to suppress the world’s access to video of a crime.
A segment of American voters want insurrectionist candidates. Who are election officials to deny them?
A new law will make it much harder to film law enforcement officers in their public duties. Does that violate the First Amendment?
