Let's focus concretely on proposed bans on advocacy of "genocide," at Stanford and beyond.
"We have had no end of a lesson: it will do us no end of good."
So a Minnesota Court of Appeals panel concluded this Summer, over a sharp dissent.
"And in (partial) defense of Harvard President Claudine Gay's controversial congressional testimony."
"Conservatives like Rep. Elise Stefanik should ask themselves: Do you honestly believe this [proposed new rule against "calls for genocide"] won't be weaponized to ban an Israeli cabinet official from speaking at Penn? An Israeli Defense Force soldier?"
"Double standards are frustrating, but we should address them by demanding free speech be protected consistently — not by expanding the calls for censorship."
No, says a judge, applying New York law.
The father's heirs "dispute the distribution of a 1978 Ford pickup truck."
An interesting opinion by the Arkansas AG's office, rejecting a proposed popular name and ballot title for a draft initiative.
The court required the university defendants to keep plaintiff's identity confidential (common in pseudonymous Title IX cases), but refused to extend this to media, students, and others.
A district court refuses to enter default judgment against caselaw publisher Leagle, concluding that the plaintiff's claims against Leagle were legally insufficient.
under California's "anti-SLAPP" statute (which allows for prompt dismissal of claims brought based on certain kinds of speech).
"Spoiler: the robot wins for lack of Article III standing."
a new article of mine, is now available at the Journal of Law & Religion.
An interesting case, decided under an Ohio statute.
"Cut your backwards ass bullshit or you will start losing family members and the President of the United States will wind up dead!"
Looks like the main problem wasn't the blind reliance, but the coverup.
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
