"This appeal raises a question not yet addressed by any California court: whether a public official may be bribed with a promise to donate to the official's office."
Plus: A listener question about the continued absurdity of sports stadium subsidies
Porn sites and other online spaces with adult content are fun; they’re also important sources of community and information.
The appeals court ruled that a Facebook post alluding to World War Z was clearly protected by the First Amendment.
Is our country getting closer to living out the true meaning of its creed, "All men are created equal"?
Only when necessary to protect five basic internet rights.
"[T]he Government argue[d] that when considering that the charged offenses occurred after the acquittal, the [appellant's] tactics were emboldened and this factor weighs in favor of admissibility."
Banks routinely snitch on customers and even deny services to people politicians don’t like.
Court finds parent's right to comment on their interactions with their child's coaches or teachers is cleartly established.
"This is literally a playground that's for 2- to 5-year-olds," says former preschool teacher Katie Courtney.
The sorority, the court held, had a First Amendment freedom of expressive association right to choose which students to admit (logic that suggests that a sorority would equally be free to exclude transgender members).
The hospital baselessly claimed the teenager's mother wrote the petition after she was fired without cause.
The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."
Section 230, the court says, immunizes good-faith attempts to block spam—and RNC didn't introduce enough evidence of bad faith.
The post led to the author being arrested for "terrorizing"; so clearly unconstitutional that the police officer lacks qualified immunity, says the Fifth Circuit.
Plus: FIRE fights college's vague "greater good" policy, Biden administration pushes double talk on tariffs, and more...
"Applicant's warning of a prima facie violation of Japanese law's privacy protections fails to constitute a harm severe enough" to justify pseudonymity.
The Government drops reference to the slave codes as a historical analogue in Rahimi.
Mug shots are not taken to humiliate a defendant before they've been convicted. But that's the purpose they widely serve now.
The motion allows early dismissal of a lawsuit, here the lawsuit that aimed to block UC Irvine from responding to a public records request from the Center for Scientific Integrity (the Retraction Watch people).
So a court concludes in a case brought by presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Plus: Invade Mexico?!, "Trump added $8 trillion to our debt," and more...
Like other features of legal procedure—such as the jury trial, the mechanism for appointing judges, the availability of appeal—pseudonymity both deeply affects the fairness of litigation and, often, the substantive outcomes.
“The whole woke movement, it’s obviously an echo of those times.”
The next presidential election may be between the two men. Can't we do better?
Plaintiffs sued for defamation, and also for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from the comments aroused by Baldwin's posts.
The government gets to pick and choose which speech it displays on its property, and doesn't have to give others a right to reply (except in public fora, which don't include school walls).
Plus: Americans vote too much, Indiana abortion ban to take effect, and more...
Defendant had accused plaintiffs, "the King and Queen of [the Pittsburgh] Renaissance Faire," of failing to properly deal with allegations of sexual harassment, and of retaliating against sexual harassment victims; the jury found that the defendant knew the statements were false, or at least recklessly disregarded the risk of falsehood.
While chalking on D.C. sidewalks and streets is illegal, the protesters say they were targeted for their beliefs.
So a federal court held Thursday.
Langford had been in the news for joining a sorority, which has caused a good deal of controversy at the University of Wyoming.
Plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden allege that federal pressure to remove and suppress COVID-19 material on Facebook and Twitter violates the First Amendment.
"[T]he fate of Plaintiff's claims hinges to some extent on the truth or falsity of Defendant's statements regarding Plaintiff's conviction of a crime. Whether Defendant's statements are false—a determination that relies at least in part on Plaintiff's criminal records—is directly relevant to the public."
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