Reason
Under the government's theory in some of the charges, any reporter who knowingly prints certain kinds of government secrets could equally be prosecuted.
The court upheld a $1000 fine imposed by state law on Presidential electors who refused to vote as the voters instructed.
"In this day and age, one must accept the possibility that one might be recorded in public. That possibility heightens when one chooses to engage in vitriolic behavior."
Tor, a leading service for anonymously accessing the Internet, is shielded by 47 U.S.C. § 230.
The restriction was unconstitutionally content-based, the Eighth Circuit held, because it has an exception for flags "containing distinctive colors, patterns or symbols used as a symbol of a government or institution."
The Supreme Court will consider the petition Thursday.
So says the Ninth Circuit, treating legal visitors as subject to the same reduced protection as that applied to illegal aliens.
Such a repeal wouldn't violate the Constitution, the opinion says (correctly, I think).
From today's opinion by Justice Thomas, for the five more conservative members of the Court, in Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt.
So holds a Louisiana Court of Appeal decision from last week.
An article by Stanford Prof. Michael McConnell.
"If this order were a Yelp review rather than a court ruling, it might read as follows: "This attorney tried to persuade the court to enter an injunction by citing an obviously invalid trial court order—zero stars."
That's notwithstanding the view of Lake City (Florida) police, who arrested and charged Shane Dillon for display this sticker.
The Eighth Circuit sticks with its earlier views on the subject, but earlier this year the Tenth Circuit departed from the majority view on the subject.
Not the sort of reasoning that's supposed to appear in American court opinions.
A district court decision from several years ago, which I just ran across.
I e-mailed the restaurant management when I saw it several months ago; they apologized, and I haven't seen the problem recur.
So a federal district court held Monday, and concluded that this principle was well-established enough to defeat a qualified immunity defense.
So the Wisconsin Supreme Court held yesterday, reversing a Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision.
And yet despite the split, I doubt that the Supreme Court would agree to take the case.
"Domingo discussed with the [confidential informant] different targets for an attack, including Jews, police officers, churches, and a military facility."
Can a court block multiple statements that seem to come from several people, but that were actually all posted by one person?
An interesting decision from the Fifth Circuit, allowing a negligence claim to go forward against organizer Deray Mckesson; the court's reasoning relies heavily on the illegal nature of the protest.
Prof. Josh Blackman (South Texas) asks this very interesting question.
Just filed yesterday, and I think it should prevail.
So holds a District Court decision, though stressing the "may be."
So holds the Third Circuit, though in a narrow opinion.
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on other grounds?
The Appellate Court of Illinois reverses a trial court decision that deferred to a Muslim divorce from India.
Seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation, even if the name is viewed as an offensive reference to illegal aliens (which the corporate owners apparently don't intend).
Even if injunctions against libel don't violate the First Amendment, should state courts still reject them on state separation of powers principles?
My translation, as a public service.
An interesting development, in a country that (like others in Eastern Europe) has had a long history of anti-Semitism.
A relatively novel suggestion, aimed at providing libel defendants with the necessary First Amendment protections while still giving libel plaintiffs protection early in the litigation process.
That's the legal theory behind a case just filed by prosecutors in Ohio.
to any decision that favors freedom against authority, even against representative government. The student of the Constitution requires something more ...."
"... and renews this court's faith in conscientious billing practices."
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
Should the availability of anti-libel injunctions turn on the subject matter of the false and defamatory speech that's being enjoined?
This actually came up in a hypo, based on a real extortion case.