UC Ban on "Intentional or Repeated Use of a Name or Pronoun Inconsistent with the Individual's Gender Identity" …
likely violates First Amendment, federal judge holds (and issues a preliminary injunction).
likely violates First Amendment, federal judge holds (and issues a preliminary injunction).
Govern yourself accordingly.
Defendant's playing "the KRS-One song entitled 'Sound of da Police' at a high and disruptive volume from her vehicle while simultaneously directing offensive, suggestive, and threatening remarks toward the complainant near the complainant's home" "may reasonably be interpreted as intended to alarm, annoy, threaten, or harass."
Oklahoma's highest criminal court reverses a 3-year sentence for "posting a video rant about [defendant's] ex-wife."
(among other things). A federal Magistrate Judge has recommended that the lawsuit be dismissed.
The Texas Court of Appeals just upheld the order.
A court refuses to order defendant to stop such posting.
So reasons a Florida appellate court, though other courts in other states seem to take a different view.
"[S]tatements made to third parties can be 'directed at' the victim," and thus criminal harassment if they're repeated and likely to cause serious annoyance or distress, "when they are designed to provoke an adverse consequence against the victim."
"Plaintiff is allegedly the target of hurtful, angry, offensive, humiliating, racial, and gender-based hate made in online posts by Defendant's followers. As tempting as it might be to force some civility into the matter by staunching Defendant's speech against Plaintiff through an injunction, doing so would ignore the protections of the First Amendment."
Fortunately, an appellate court just reversed the decision.
The student was explaining the concept of an eruv, a feature of certain Jewish neighborhoods, in class to an architecture professor, who allegedly said the time the student had spent on project "would have been better spent if [Ms. Canaan] had instead explored 'what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.'" …
But Council Member Peter Ortiz had gotten a temporary order that was in effect for nearly four months; the underlying disputed stemmed from a controversy related to a "Drag Queen story time."
The court concluded that the plaintiff, a former New York City educator and administrator, presented enough of a case to go to the jury.
"Outside of certain narrow and presently inapplicable circumstances, federal lawsuits are public proceedings and members of the public are free to comment on them."
She had admitted that some (though not all) of the speech was false, but the injunction (entered in a restraining order case, not following a full defamation trial) extends to all speech, not just falsehoods: "Even speech otherwise protected by the First Amendment may be enjoined if it disturbs the petitioning party's peace."
"So whatever hard to imagine rationalization Haverford might offer for obscuring the content of its actual bias policy—an artifice reminiscent of Dean Wormer's 'double secret probation'—I find the demarcation 'draft' to be of no legal import."
"[B]oth parties exchanged these Snapchat videos while they were intoxicated and their judgment was impaired. Notwithstanding, the communications were private and intended to be jokes between close friends."
A temporary order had been issued, but the trial court refused to extend it into a permanent order, and awarded $15K in attorney fees; an appellate court has just upheld the trial court's final decision, and added $8K for appellate attorney fees.
So Texas's high court for criminal matters held yesterday.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.