David Cole writes, Ira Glasser and Wendy Kaminer respond. [UPDATE: Added Cole's reply.]
Press accounts had said he “had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls” and that he had told a 14-year-old girl at the mall “she looked pretty.” "But viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Moore, the court finds that telling viewers that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting sex from a 14-year-old Santa’s Helper is more stinging than telling viewers that Moore complimented a 14-year-old girl on her appearance or telling them more generally that Moore was banned from the mall for soliciting young girls.”
I highly recommend Leningrad's new song Оспа, which means "pox." Некультурно, but very funny.
"I can't think of any other situation where we would change the words of an alleged rape victim."
The appellate court also rejected the trial court's reliance on the 8-year-old child's "unsubstantiated" allegations of abuse.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch join Justice Alito's dissent, and Justice Kagan disagreed with the majority without opinion. This is not a decision on the merits of the law, but Justice Alito's dissent notes why the answer to the merits question is "quite unclear."
How should we think about slippery slope arguments, whether they come from liberals or conservatives or libertarians or anyone else?
$50K in funding was withdrawn by a Brooklyn councilwoman, and transferred to a different organization.
A crack theft leads to alleged attempted rape and the shooting of the drug dealers / alleged attempted rapist.
Painting "Black Lives Matter" doesn't require New York to allow other groups to paint other slogans.
Among other things, the investigator "appeared to accept Father’s explanation that his 2003 kidnapping conviction based on allegations of domestic violence in a previous relationship was a misunderstanding, not the result of criminal conduct," "[finding] 'credible' Father’s explanation that he 'was unfairly incarcerated based on the lies of the victim and because of the racist justice system.'"
Two phrases you probably didn't expect to see together.
The Charleston (West Virginia) incident from a few days ago, the FBI 2021 statistics, and more.
so long as the court makes the decision for secular reasons.
Pretty obvious, I think, but helpful to see a specific case on the subject.
An isolated sexually themed passage, even a graphic one, doesn't make a work obscene.
It's chiefly because Virginia doesn't recognize nonmutual collateral estoppel, of course!
So a district court held Tuesday.
You absolutely, positively shouldn't be allowed to read it. Definitely forbidden.
What's on your mind?
A "private educational institution owes a [tort law] duty, independent of any contractual promises, to adopt fair procedures and to implement those procedures with reasonable care when investigating and adjudicating claims of sexual misconduct by one student against another."
This finding is now being used as a basis for seeking a restraining order banning Barnes & Noble from distributing the books to minors. Is that constitutional?
The Institute for Justice, which represented the critic, so reports.
The underlying lawsuit was brought by Mickell Lowery, a Commissioner for Shelby County (which contains Memphis)—and son of longtime Memphis City Councilman Myron Lowery, who had also briefly served as Mayor—over allegedly libelous statements during his election campaign.
as applied to "program that would train non-lawyers to give [free] legal advice to low-income New Yorkers who face debt collection actions" about how to "fill out checkboxes on a one-page answer form provided by the State."
The case involved a person who objected to his tax money being "used to facilitate abortion," but the principle applies to objections for any reason.
fired for doing so in a way that includes a "personal ... attack on [the superintendent's] integrity.
"Plaintiff's behavior may make it more difficult for other courts (and the public) to find his litigation history, which could act to conceal future vexatious litigation or behavior."
The claims arise out of “UPMC’s purported disclosure of their confidential medical information to [child protection authorities] for the purpose of targeting them with highly intrusive, humiliating and coercive child abuse investigations starting before taking their newborn babies home from UPMC’s hospitals shortly after childbirth.”
The result might have been different "if plaintiff's speech had occurred off-campus."
