A good illustration of a basic principle: Facts are not protected by copyright.
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
Prof. Steven Lubet (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) has an excellent analysis.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me, whether applied to pro-Trump T-shirts (as in a recently-filed lawsuit) or to other such material.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals rightly reverses.
Including from Above The Law, Jonathan Turley, PopeHat, Simple Justice, TechDirt, Reuters, Bloomberg, L.A. Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and more.
Treating free expression like an instrument of power means that the fight is more about who gets punished most when politicians write new restrictions.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Part three in Reason's documentary series, "Cypherpunks Write Code," tells the story of the U.S. government's long battle to keep strong cryptography out of the hands of its citizens
"In nearly all civil and criminal litigation ..., one party asserts that the allegations leveled against it by another party are patently false"; but "if the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
Plus: Supreme Court won't stop Pennsylvania from counting late ballots, proposed amendment would limit Court to nine justices, and more...
The Reason Roundtable argues over what to do when Twitter prematurely suppresses oppo-dump journalism unfavorable to Democrats, and when politicians respond with retaliatory regulation.
A brief supporting the company's appeal argues that its discussion of pain treatment was constitutionally protected.
"Plaintiff would have his allegations litigated in a star chamber with a jury of ordinary citizens presumably barred from discussing the case after their service in a closed courtroom."
Minnesota Order Banning "False or Defamatory Statements" Limited to Knowingly False And Defamatory Statements
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
A federal judge makes it clear: "the consumption of alcohol at a party does not vitiate journalistic intent"; hard-drinking reporters are as covered by the journalist's privilege as the abstemious. Other journalistic traditions that aren't disqualifying: bias, and bearing grudges.
An attempt to protect litigant privacy meant that binding precedent was vanished from Westlaw.
Twitter Blocking a New York Post Article Was Dumb—but Not Illegal, Censorship, or Election Interference
Plus: 898,000 new jobless claims, and more...
The subject of the new film Mighty Ira explains why social justice warriors are wrong to attack free speech.
The Texas senator notes the opposing party's blind spots on freedom of speech and the right to arms.
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
Inspired by Germany's notorious hate-speech law, more countries seek to impose steep penalties on platforms that don't comply with their censorship whims.
Improving diversity is a worthy endeavor. But compelled “diversity statements” are a form of social engineering that, ironically, can be exclusionary.
Plus: Tech companies respond, proposed H-1B visa changes, and more...
These beliefs shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate way to see the world.
"Unassailable Ideas: How Unwritten Rules and Social Media Shape Discourse in American Higher Education"
Profs. Ilana Redstone and John Villasenor are guest-blogging this week about their new book.
A federal district court rejects the argument that the documentary will violate trade secret rights related to "a long-lost photograph that purportedly depicts Abraham Lincoln lying wounded on the night of his assassination."
The injunction, the court held, is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
And that's true even if state graffiti law provided probable cause for the arrest, so long as there's evidence that chalking with other messages almost never leads to arrests.
Regina Ip spins a fantasy of a just government restoring order to Hong Kong.