The "right to be forgotten" comes to Texas.
"We remind respondent -- and all other colleges and universities, particularly state-affiliated institutions -- of their unwavering obligation to conduct student disciplinary proceedings in a manner that comports with fundamental notions of due process for the accused, that renders determinations consistent with the facts, and that respects the presumption of innocence to which all students are entitled."
A brewing First Amendment controversy, triggered by newspaper's publishing information about a plea agreement in the policeman's prosecution -- the agreement was intended to be sealed, but was inadvertently briefly released unsealed on the docket.
A Newfoundland court holds (relying on a precedent involving a lesbian couple) that children of polyamorous families may have more than two parents, notwithstanding a statute that would not have allowed this.
So report Czech media.
Federal and state courts are divided on whether such injunctions are constitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not weighed in.
This is the state-law version of the debate now happening at the federal level. [UPDATE: A Wisconsin Supreme Court decision a couple of weeks ago took the same view.]
So holds this morning's important Wisconsin Supreme Court decision, by a 4-2 vote.
Iowa Supreme Court majority and dissenting opinions canvass the state of the law.
The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider the "separate sovereigns" exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause -- and Justices Ginsburg and Thomas seem to both be on the defendant's side.
The question that the Court didn't resolve in Lozman v. Riviera-Beach is back, in another case on which the Supreme Court just granted review.
"If an employee's speech is about, in, and directed to the workplace, she has no 'possibility of a First Amendment claim,'" say the dissenters -- but that's not what the First Amendment caselaw says.
States that want to allow public sector unions, and avoid "free-rider" problems, should still be able to do that -- just by paying unions directly, rather than via compelled agency fees.
Today's Supreme Court decision adds to the law -- and the uncertainty -- about when the First Amendment bans the government from requiring speech.
An interesting separate concurrence in the "travel ban" decision.
The U.S. has nearly unlimited power to decide when foreigners are admitted to the country, even based on factors (such as ideology, religion, and likely race and sex) that would be unconstitutional as to people already in the country.
David Cole and Nadine Strossen had responded to Kaminer's op-ed on this; Kaminer responds in turn.
Is the ACLU becoming less committed to protecting free speech, especially speech that some view as "imped[ing] progress toward equality"?
It all began with a jurisdictional dispute over an Egyptian divorce proceeding and a New York divorce proceeding.
Very narrow decisions -- or decisions not to decide -- in some more of the Supreme Court's most watched cases.
The Court has decided that almost all of the Bill of Rights applies to the states (with just a few exceptions that don't); now it will decide about the Excessive Fines Clause.
No, says the Illinois Appellate Court.
Crafted with love in the cellars of the Sixth Circuit.
The Florida Evidence Code apparently requires clergy to testify about confessions to them, if the penitent allows them to do so -- but Catholic doctrine forbids any such testimony, regardless of the penitent's wishes. Which should prevail?
Clinch seeks "an apology," "an undertaking from you not to post anti-trans or vilifying posts in future, and to remove those that are currently on your public Facebook profile," "a further undertaking from you to remove any anti trans and vilifying posts made by other people from your public profile," and "for you to participate in training about vilification, and trans' issues."
But a more precise ban on clothing in polling places (which the Court treats as "nonpublic fora") that mentions candidates, parties, or ballot measures may be constitutional.
My first foray into podcasting here at Reason, a discussion with Reason editor Katherine Mangu-Ward.
The N.Y. Senate just unanimously passed a bill that would do that.
So holds the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, affirming a juvenile court finding of responsibility.
New York appellate court reverses a judgment (likely prompted by one of the parents' religious beliefs) that bars either parent from feeding the child "fish, meat, or poultry" without the other's consent.
The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected Snapchat's federal 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 defense, though Snapchat may still win under Georgia law.
Each one of us has the right to access court records, so we can just sue pro se (though it helps to know the legal rules).
A tiny free speech victory.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanks
Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks