Reason
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.
A Pennsylvania court decision said they can (though relying on cases generally allowing restrictions on Public Trial Clause and First Amendment trial access rights in the interest of preventing embarrassment to witnesses).
The speech had been cosponsored by three faculty-run programs at the College.
Apparently, that's so of qualified privileges and of the All Writs Act -- but what on earth does that mean?
This is the key proposal from my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions -- a way of taming the anti-libel injunction to include important First Amendment procedural protections, but still allow its use to prevent genuine libels.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
Just click on the little fuchsia speech-balloon at the end of the post, on the right hand side.
The East St. Louis Housing Authority stipulates to allowing residents to possess guns.
The second edition of "Breaking Numbers Into Parts": very highly recommended.
I'm continuing to serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions.
I thought I'd serialize my forthcoming Penn Law Review article on Anti-Libel Injunctions; here is the section on criminal libel law -- the article argues that anti-libel injunctions are like mini-criminal-libel laws.
Episode 3 of Free Speech Rules, starring UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
An allegedly bogus dossier on plaintiff was sent by defendant to a third party in 2003 -- and then hit the news in 2017. Can plaintiff sue for libel?
That's what Christiane Amanpour asked former FBI Director James Comey.
No such right is clearly established when it comes to booking mugshots, says a federal district court.
The court held that plaintiffs' sexual harassment claims (under Title IX) and religious objection claims (under the Illinois RFRA and under the Free Exercise Clause) could go forward, at least for now.
Since I've been blogging today about public rights of access to sealed files, I thought I'd pass this along.
This violates the First Amendment and common law rights of access to court records, I think; Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) has just filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the matter (Shelby Resorts Corp. v. Does, in New Jersey Superior Court).
It's an order to create policies, not a policy -- so it's hard to tell what it will do until we see what policies various departments create.
Its exclusion of Chick-Fil-A from the airport appears to be based on the viewpoint expressed by Chick-Fil-A and various organizations to which it donates.
Two Second Amendment wins late last week.
A very interesting symposium, with (among many others) Floyd Abrams, Prof. Leslie Kendrick (Virginia), Nadine Strossen (former head of the ACLU), and more.
[UPDATE: Sorry, this was double-posted; please add any comments to the post above.]
But courts can't order suspension of an entire account even if they find that some posts were libelous.
This is besides the libel claims he is bringing against them; highly insulting Tweets, he argues, are "fighting words" and thus punishable under Virginia law.
The defamation (and negligence) claims against Twiter are blocked by 47 U.S.C. § 230.
The statute doesn't require that the defendant knew the statement was false or likely false, and is thus inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.
In 1972, a 4-1-4 Supreme Court decision said "yes" in federal cases, no in state cases; the Supreme Court will now reconsider it.
"Auto-brewery syndrome" (or "gut fermentation syndrome") is apparently a thing -- but, the Maine high court says, the judge permissibly excluded a particular expert who wanted to testify this thing might have happened in this case.
Every reasonable officer should know that, says the Sixth Circuit.
And that's expedited appellate review.
If your client has been ordered not to say things about someone, here are the precedents supporting your right to an expedited appeal.
But it's so thin!