Restraining Orders Do Not Prove That People Are 'Dangerous'
The Biden administration is defending a federal law that disarms Americans based on "boilerplate language" in orders that judges routinely grant.
The Biden administration is defending a federal law that disarms Americans based on "boilerplate language" in orders that judges routinely grant.
"Even after his 2021 exoneration, Baltimore County prosecutors have opposed Clarence receiving compensation for the injustice of being wrongfully convicted," says an attorney representing the man.
The Appellate Court of Maryland just upheld the lower court's finding, and related protective order.
Plaintiff "asserts that her published work and other accounts describing life as an escort were part of an effort to build a career in writing and were entirely fictional. As for the websites and other internet advertisements cited by defendants, she claims that they were produced for the purpose of satisfying Medium’s 'fact-checking' requirements and possibly promoting a future fictional web series on the topic."
"We are here because one preschooler pulled down another preschooler's pants," says defense attorney Jason Flores-Williams.
Plus: the terrible case for pausing A.I. innovation
New bill makes a mockery of parents’ rights, school choice, and educational freedom.
Three reasons not to ban the popular social media app
Is an A.I. "foom" even possible?
"This drama around teaching Michelangelo's 'David' sculpture, one of the most important works of art in existence, has become ... a parody of ... the actual aims of classical education."
And AI programs' "tendency [to, among other things, produce untruthful content] can be particularly harmful as models become increasingly convincing and believable, leading to overreliance on them by users. Counterintuitively, hallucinations can become more dangerous as models become more truthful, as users build trust in the model when it provides truthful information in areas where they have some familiarity."
Surveillance tech that isn't banned often becomes mandatory eventually.
Coal baron and later Senate candidate Blankenship had been convicted of a misdemeanor, and served a year in prison for it; a federal judge has concluded that Blankenship hadn't introduced enough evidence that Trump, Jr. knew that he had erred in calling Blankenship a "felon."
Second in a two-part series published by Australian Outlook, a publication of the Australian Institute for International Affairs.
"Defendant Huber intentionally fired his service weapon at Decedent and killed him with gunfire while Decedent posed no threat of death or serious bodily harm to Defendant Huber," the lawsuit states.
Plus: Senate Republicans spar over TikTok and free speech, Americans can't agree on how to cut spending, and more...
No, said the Florida Court of Appeal, interpreting the Florida statute; the California Supreme Court, interpreting the California statute, had held otherwise.
The 5th Circuit noted that such orders can be issued without any credible evidence of a threat to others.
"Taking that child across the border, and if that happens without the permission of the parent, that's where we'll be able to hold accountable those that would subvert a parent's right," said one of the bill's sponsors.
And this lawsuit faces many of the same administrative law hurdles as does AHM v. FDA.
Bonus: Calling someone a "nut" isn't libel.
The economic historian and Magatte Wade, Alex Gladstein, Mohamad Machine-Chian, Tony Woodlief, and Tom Palmer are challenging authoritarians everywhere.
Plus: States consider mandatory anti-porn filters, tariffs create baby formula shortages (again), and more...
Opponents of the proposed reforms are right that unlimited majority rule is a recipe for tyranny.
An unusual coalition of liberal and conservative justices rules that property owners have right to use Quiet Title Act to contest federal intrusion on their land, even in some cases where the statute of limitations may have passed.
ADF's Erin Hawley responds to my post on the jurisdictional problems in AHM v. FDA and I reply.
The Supreme Court justice seemed willing to invalidate the federal law on First Amendment grounds.
As the government sets its sights on migrants crossing the border, native-born Americans have also come under its watchful eye.
Today, TikTok. Tomorrow, who knows?
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