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."
The court so holds as a matter of the law of remedies, though I think such an order would generally be an unconstitutional prior restraint as well.
Understanding the scope of Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid.
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."
The trial court reasoned: "You guys ... have a spat on Facebook.... Nobody cares about these s[p]ats. Just block them and move on."
The codes were first adopted in 1963.
Criticism of Grayson (who's now running in the 2022 Florida Senate primary) in his losing 2018 House campaign was based on "articles by independent, reputable sources," and there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that the defendants knew their statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" standard).
What's on your mind?
The student's mother alleged that he had been bullied and the school district had done nothing to protect him; the teacher's aide responded in an online public discussion, saying (among other things) that the student had been doing the bullying; the parents sued.
said Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) about this amicus brief from Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) and Phillip R. Malone of the Juelsgaard I/P and Innovation Clinic (at Stanford).
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
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