Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might be interested.
The N.Y. Commissioner of Education has just reversed the decision.
"no matter how challenging or controversial a topic may be."
So holds the Florida Court of Appeal, rejecting the members' claim that they aren't subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. The majority doesn't discuss the substantive merits of the case.
"Lily accused Gunther of 'Gaslighting' (underscoring omitted) by denying he suffered from steroid-induced rages during their marriage and denying Lily's contributions to Gunther's career success."
including the right to videorecord, given that state law (unlike federal law) provides for such videorecording for the mainstream media; so holds the Ohio Chief Justice.
by Kyle Langvardt & Alan Z. Rozenshtein.
"The problem with these cases is that [only one] exist[s]."
At least this is so when defendant "also ... allegedly directed viewers of her post to click on her 'Likes' page where the video had been archived" (not clear what the judge would have thought if the case involved solely the "like").
Plus, does speech about a celebrity become "intentional infliction of emotional distress" when the celebrity is known to have been "trauma[tized]" by a violent crime?
A federal district court discusses how the First Amendment limits liability for "hostile environment harassment" based on "speech on matters of public concern" in universities (public or private). And the reasoning may extend to Title VII liability on workplaces as well.
“Plaintiff has not conducted this litigation as though it involves matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature—instead, she would cloak herself in pseudonymity, and the protections it affords, while publicly lobbing allegations at Defendant by name.”
Playing around with the post time (shifting to the start of the day to midday). "It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."
That's because it apparently covers only grants to foreign organizations operating abroad, and a 2020 Supreme Court decision generally held that the First Amendment doesn't apply in such situations.
The settlement of the civil case follows guilty pleas or convictions in related criminal cases.
The Michigan Court of Appeals just upheld the conviction, under a statute that requires showing of purpose to (among other things) "harass[]" or "molest[]," and reason to know that third parties would send the target unwanted and "harass[ing]" or "molest[ing]" messages. The statute doesn't require any showing that the accusations were false.
Nunes and his family's farm can't sufficiently show damages, so the court doesn't have to reach any of the other elements of defamation.
