Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, hosted at Reason.
Latest from Eugene Volokh
(Post bumped to the top.)
Alice sends nude picture to her ex, Bob. Bob's new girlfriend (or maybe would-be girlfriend) Carol gets it and posts it online. Carol wouldn't be guilty under the state revenge porn statute, the court rules.
A funny line from an interesting story about a photoshopped photograph in GQ, "more a cheapfake than a deepfake."
No Product Liability for Risk Assessment Tool Used in Deciding Whether to Release Arrestees Before Trial
So a federal district court held Tuesday.
Except that the phrase isn't originally Avenatti's -- it had been used by Ted Kennedy, Anita Hill, Rick Santorum, and (as "Let America be America again") by Langston Hughes in 1935.
Prof. Michael Dorf, who co-signed an amicus brief with me on this subject, adds more in response to an exchange with a law professor on the other side.
Depends on how much of the face it covers, the California Court of Appeal seems to suggest.
So a New Jersey appellate court held today.
The underlying subject matter in Copeland v. Vance is knives, and a New York law banning "gravity knives," but the legal issue is what must be shown for a facial vagueness challenge to a criminal statute.
May the House of Representatives Appeal Dismissal of Criminal Charges, When the Justice Department Doesn't Appeal?
From Prof. Jonathan Nash (Emory), an expert on Congressional standing.
The U.S. Supreme Court had sent the case back down to be considered in light of the (narrow) Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.
Here's an amicus brief so arguing, signed by Profs. Michael C. Dorf (Cornell) and Andrew M. Koppelman (Northwestern) -- two leading liberal First Amendment scholars -- and me.
Deputy Scot Peterson (of Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Fame) Being Prosecuted for, Essentially, Cowardice in Battle
The formal charges are child neglect and criminal negligence.
So the Colorado Supreme Court held today.
(1) If they're alleging sexual abuse. (2) If they're alleging they were libeled as sexual abusers. (3) Both. (4) Neither.
Can the House of Representatives Continue a Prosecution That the Executive Branch Has Decided to Drop?
An interesting separation of powers question coming in the Female Genital Mutilation statute / Commerce Clause / Religious Freedom Restoration Act / Dawoodi Bohra litigation.
So holds a (nonprecedential) California Court of Appeal decision in the Jenni Rivera heirs vs. Univision case, though the decision is narrowly tied to these particular facts.
"Students are expected to attend classes. If they fail to do so without a valid excuse, their absence is duly-noted and appropriate action is taken. But the teachers at the center of this controversy expect different treatment."
A small step forward for self-defense rights.
The appellate court reversed, though without reaching the First Amendment question.
If only you could use parentheses in English the way you can in math or computer programming.
So holds a district court, in a copyright case brought by the Jehovah's Witnesses against a Reddit commenter.
Words of wisdom from the Utah Supreme Court.
The Utah Supreme Court upheld a six-month suspension without pay, based in part (though not entirely) on these remarks; the judge has a history of past discipline on other grounds as well.
Episode 4 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
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).