Yet Another Court Affirms the First Amendment Right To Record Police
The Supreme Court still refuses to weigh in on the issue.
The Supreme Court still refuses to weigh in on the issue.
Perhaps, as we relearn the virtues of local decision-making, we'll also reacquire a taste for individualism.
Several states are retaining subjective criteria for carry permits or imposing new restrictions on gun possession.
And, even more exciting, there’s personal jurisdiction thrown in.
The D.C. Circuit so held, concluding that the FCC regulation exceeded its powers under the federal Communications Act.
A good illustration of how many courts deal with personal jurisdiction in libel cases.
A 1942 decision about the Commerce Clause takes on new importance post-Roe.
Plus: When "anti-wokeness" becomes an obsession, why immigrants are upwardly mobile, and more...
Good thing Zak Smith had lawyer characters with 18 Tort Law Acumen.
While gun control enthusiasts rushed to defend Japan's firearm restrictions after Shinzo Abe's assassination, copying that approach in the U.S. is legally, politically, and practically impossible.
Antiabortion activists are the new Anthony Comstocks.
Plus: Banned books, a bookstore revival, and more...
Is negligently providing information to a dangerous person comparable to negligently entrusting a gun to a dangerous person (assuming a reasonable person would have realized the person was dangerous)?
The surveillance state’s appetite for sensitive information is dangerous under any flag.
The book may never achieve the cultural recognition of some other top censorship targets, but the fight over I Am Jazz symbolizes America's trans moral panic.
Dedication to free speech is in short supply around the world, with Britain and Canada previously considering similar bills.
An obscure Supreme Court case provides a roadmap through the curricular culture war.
Defendants include a DHS employee and a retired DHS law enforcement agent.
Residents of Nogales are now under the gaze of a round-the-clock surveillance craft.
The abortion wars have entered a new phase.
Some states promptly eliminated subjective standards, while others refused to recognize the decision's implications.
Like it or not, the Thomas Court is here.
After community outrage and the mayor saying he wasn't told about Timothy Loehmann's policing background, the officer withdrew his application.
“Defendants cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words ‘harass’ and ‘hate’ when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context.”
The debate isn’t a panorama of the whole American abortion war, but it is a snapshot of a key battle after a surprise victory, and it shows no path to peace.
The split in the cases grows.
Ventura County Supervisor Linda Parks sues a company that's in the business of delivering "chocolate Dick[s]," "offensive 5 inch chocolate phallus[es] with no redeeming social qualities, whatsoever."
How school board members lashed out against dirty words
Plus a nice catalog of how high the bar can be for punishable threats under New York law.
Social media platforms may marginally support free speech. Government censors are trying to stop that.
An interesting threats case, from the Louisiana Court of Appeal
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