but because here the employer's (and union's) actions were basically just an incident of public criticism, they didn't qualify as hostile environment harassment (and the employee wasn't fired or demoted).
Under N.Y. law, the court holds, a jury could find that the alleged touching could qualify as touching of "intimate parts," based on its context.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is becoming the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
"Our generation always understood each other without borders and passports / There, where we sang about friendship, today people dream only of complete revenge / All that normal people built over the years—all is obliterated."
"[L]iability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities."
In most states, if a court issues a gag order and you don't appeal it, you can go to jail for violating it even if you later argue that it violates your First Amendment rights.
The case may get refiled, but it’s not looking promising.
"[T]hese threats to due process and academic freedom are matters of life and death for our great universities. It is incumbent upon their leaders to reverse the disturbing trend of indifference to these threats, or simple immobilization due to fear of internal constituencies of the 'virtuous' determined to lunge for influence or settle scores against outspoken colleagues."
What's on your mind?
"[P]olitics has no place in Kentucky's public pensions.... '[S]takeholder capitalism' and 'environmental, social, and governance' investment practices that introduce mixed motivations to investment decisions are inconsistent with Kentucky law governing fiduciary duties owed by investment management firms to Kentucky's public pension plans."
A federal statute imposes liability for conspiracies "to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner" for the election of federal candidates, or for "injur[ing] any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy."
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.
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