How much do you trust judges to make such decisions without public scrutiny?
There's a New Hampshire prosecution for criminal libel of a police chief -- and it may well be legally viable, at least if the defendant's statement is seen as a knowingly false factual claim. [UPDATE, June 8, 2018: Charges have now been dropped.]
The court decision was just a declaratory judgment, and thus not strictly legally binding.
An interesting opinion from three Georgia Supreme Court Justices.
A libel lawsuit in which the alleged libel is sealed is like Hamlet without the Prince -- or maybe like Othello with Iago's slanders redacted.
Four Justices opined on this issue, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saying that requiring bakers to make cakes for same-sex weddings is an unconstitutional speech compulsion, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor saying the opposite.
Why did the Court find that Colorado acted based on hostility to religion -- and thus violated the Free Exercise Clause -- and not just based on hostility to sexual orientation discrimination?
"[A] soldier who willfully communicates information relating to the national defense 'is not entitled to invoke the First Amendment as a shield to immunize his act of thievery.'"
No, says the Iowa Supreme Court, rejecting the claim that such statements (labeled "counterculture practices" by the plaintiffs) were libelous or negligent.
But it took a federal court order.
... enforce it in the U.S. using the official bolivar-dollar exchange rate -- but you can't, at least in New York.
"When a person voluntarily accepts a 'friend' request on Facebook from an undercover police officer, and then exposes incriminating evidence...the Fourth Amendment [does not] protect against this mistaken trust."
I'm delighted to report that the villain in this season of Homeland was named Yevgeniy -- my birth name.
A useful illustration of how libel law tends to play out in such cases.
Prof. Rick Hasen (Election Law Blog), who is also a remedies expert, writes about the judge's choice to issue a declaratory judgment rather than an injunction.
So holds a federal district court today, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
[UPDATE: The university is now reported (as of Friday, May 25) to be saying that no investigation is taking place, and that the original student newspaper account saying that there was such an investigation was mistaken; but the university hadn't responded to FIRE's earlier queries about the matter, and it hadn't responded to my query before I had to put up my post.]
The North Dakota Supreme Court says "no," but one judge dissents.
LAMBDA Legal suggests the answer would be "yes," under the American Bar Association's proposed rule 8.4, which they are supporting.
So holds the New South Wales (Australia) high court.
That's what D.C. stalking law, as interpreted by D.C. courts, calls for.
The councilman was Trayon "Rothschilds Control the Weather" White (or, if you prefer, Trayon "Nazi Stormtrooper Protectors" White).
I'll grant Justice Courtney Goodson's request to block ads that allegedly libel her during her reelection campaign, says one trial judge. Unconstitutional prior restraint, says another.
That was the plan of a University of Akron professor, because of "the national movement to encourage women students to go into information sciences"; fortunately, the University blocked this.
A new Google policy calls for such deindexing based on administrative agency findings-without a court order-in cases where the agency is "charged with protecting consumers' physical safety from harm by products or services that they consume."
"A northwest Arkansas judge who ordered that attack ads critical of Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson be taken off the air this week reported receiving [over $12,500 of] income, through his wife, from the law firm of Goodson's husband."
A state law, signed yesterday, frees food trucks from various onerous local restrictions.
A customer reports that he was blocked from accessing us at a Nordstrom coffee shop; have you had similar experiences?
The ad criticizes Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; the TRO that she just got today is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.
Data from the FBI's Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017 report; legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.
"[Defendant's] posts inspired viewers' comments, which read like a nerd's version of a fist fight." More substantively, "In this context, and considering the cutting-edge nature of [plaintiff's] research into antimatter's theoretical applications [which defendant was sharply criticizing], a reasonable reader would expect zealous debate."
This isn't an enhancement for assaults on your spouse -- it's an enhancement for assaults on anyone, if you happen to be married.
According to the group's theory, a vast range of political hardball is a crime.
OK, not quite what it sounds like ....
The Russian V-E Day, celebrating the end of World War II 73 years ago.
So concludes the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, in rejecting rapper Dr. Dre's trademark claim against OB/GYN -- and OB/GYN-related writer and lecturer -- Draion M. Burch, who calls himself Dr. Drai.
A First Amendment violation, I think, notwithstanding the court's concern about the anonymous Tweeter's privacy.
Two planetary scientists so argue, and there's a legal hook, but it's really just an excuse for me to ....
The New Jersey Supreme Court answers.
So the New Jersey Supreme Court held this morning, in Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman.
An interesting question, which some other courts have answered otherwise.
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