These are likely just the tip of the fakeberg.
What's on your mind?
because she was angry about the Israel-Hamas war, Indianapolis police said."
Harvard concludes that it is, but I’m skeptical that this is right—just as I’d be skeptical that an employer’s restricting pro-Hamas speech constitutes such discrimination or harassment.
was a violation of free speech principles, Harvard concludes.
"or something else?," now out in the Texas Law Review Online (by T. Markus Funk, Andrew S. Boutros, and me).
The plea agreement recommends that he receive probation.
even though the First Amendment doesn't itself provide such protection.
Idaho's Attorney General Raúl Labrador so opines, including a rousing defense of academic freedom, including in scholarship and teaching.
The controversy is similar to part of the controversy in Murthy v. Missouri (formerly Missouri v. Biden), which also involves allegations of government coercion aimed at interfering with speech.
What's on your mind?
Hustler Magazine v Falwell comes to small town politics.
and a much more common rejection of plaintiff-side pseudonymity.
Also, "The Court's docket is not a social media feed."
What's on your mind?
Passes are parabolas, "you've got to be a sorry mofo to steal from the lowest of the low" was hyperbole.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
