Journal of Free Speech Law Panel on Regulating Social Media Platforms Tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11 am Pacific
It's with Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Daphne Keller (Stanford), and Mark Lemley (Stanford), moderated by Jane Bambauer (Arizona).
It's with Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Daphne Keller (Stanford), and Mark Lemley (Stanford), moderated by Jane Bambauer (Arizona).
Despite such magazines being widely and lawfully used, and with the ban having been tossed out by other courts and court panels, the 9th Circuit thinks the ban does not violate the Second Amendment
The decision is at odds with rulings by some other federal courts, and could end up setting an important precedent.
An important and interesting question, arising here as to Title IX, free speech, and due process, but relevant more generally as well (and now pending before the Supreme Court).
Even when you're not wearing it.
A federal court wasn't having it.
The argument made by Finnis, George, Hammer and others, that abortion is unconstitutional is not supported by text or history.
Eric Adams thinks he can give the police more power to hunt for guns without making innocent minority men the inevitable target.
The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal.
Plus: Los Angeles will start fining businesses that don't enforce the city's vaccine passport system, Disney yanks a China-critical Simpsons episode, and more...
A school board official told said "students would not participate in a book-club event scheduled for February with Nadia Murad, a Nobel Prize-winner and activist," because "Ms. Murad’s book, 'The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State,' would foster Islamophobia."
The IRS' track record suggests that beefed up enforcement will also mean more trampling of Americans' due process rights.
The jury rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
Did you think Kyle Rittenhouse's endorsement of Black Lives Matter was odd? Think of all the unusual stuff you've forgotten.
Some are using Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal to argue for harsher laws and punishments. Andrew Coffee IV's case is a study in why that's an awful idea.
Florida passed a law to stop big tech “censorship.” But the law itself tramples First Amendment rights.
Restrictions have little chance of moving beyond political theater, or of winning compliance if passed.
No, because courts conclude that those terms are just opinions and name-calling.
The official was the Vice President for Student Affairs and Diversity at the University of North Dakota.
Are universities supposed to have institutional views on the facts about self-defense in a case half a continent way?
We talk about blogging, social media and free speech, the Religion Clauses, and federalism and individual rights.
The newspaper wrongly implies that press freedom is limited to "real" journalists.
The American Civil Liberties Union should not cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense.
The trial became an upside-down microcosm for the polarized debates about the U.S. criminal justice system.
British political scientist David Runciman says the answer is "yes." And he makes a stronger case than you might think.
This stop was a Fourth Amendment violation, holds a federal court.
“UNOS’s reasoning boils down to a desire to keep indiscreet communications out of the public eye, which is not enough to satisfy our standard for good cause.”
From leading liberal constitutional law professor Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern), in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
Why trust an agency that conceals information from judges but prosecutes us for lying to it?
"Representatives of a public entity taking the opportunity to squelch plaintiffs' views as apostasy"; the squelching was partly based on claims that certain remarks are "abusive and coded in racist terms, also known as 'dog whistles,'" and that "comments about the District's equity survey" were "'irrelevant' to the meeting agenda item of the District's equity policy."
A surveillance case will determine whether officials can be sued for "national security" rights violations.
A delayed, but hopefully still helpful final rejoinder to Stephen Sachs.
And now an appeals court has ruled the cops who arrested her aren't entitled to qualified immunity from her lawsuit.
Plus: Yale University faces an interesting lawsuit, the ACLU takes a stance on student loan debt, and more...