The court is discussing orders "enjoining protected speech or conduct ... without an adversarial hearing or adjudication on the merits that the speech or conduct is not protected."
The official argued, among other things, that defendant's speech constituted "words of incitement" intended "to rile up the Black community to attack [her]."
An Ohio trial court issued the injunction, but the Ohio Court of Appeals has just set it aside.
The court concludes the pastor's posts were about the activists' organization (Oklahomans for Equality) and not about them personally; it thus avoided having to decide whether the First Amendment would have protected the speech if it was indeed about the activists personally.
Yes, when the restriction is being imposed by the government.
notwithstanding the claim that it “invites worldwide haters to threaten, stalk, and commit violence against” her.
"Some courts have incorrectly used this exception to rationalize upholding a statute that criminalizes speech ... simply because their legislature passed a law labeling it criminal. The limited line of United States Supreme Court cases that have addressed this exception in no way supports such a broad reading."
I'm against it, whomever it's coming from.
Such speech can be found to be "impermissible harassment," the court says, partly because "deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder."
The Indiana Court of Appeals, though, reverses the order, concluding the judge wasn't allowed to issue such an order on his own initiative; it doesn't decide whether such an order would violate the First Amendment.
Among other things, posts that "target the plaintiff's reputation and cause her emotional distress" aren't covered by the Massachusetts harassment prevention order statute.
The trial court found that "Decker continued contacting Siewert after she had asked him to stop five times" and "Decker's intent was to impose his will on Siewert to make her write about certain issues and to cover those issues in the way that he wanted them covered."
The trial judge concluded the Tweet was “harassment by defamation.”
So a Minnesota Court of Appeals panel concluded this Summer, over a sharp dissent.
under California's "anti-SLAPP" statute (which allows for prompt dismissal of claims brought based on certain kinds of speech).
Harvard concludes that it is, but I’m skeptical that this is right—just as I’d be skeptical that an employer’s restricting pro-Hamas speech constitutes such discrimination or harassment.
Hustler Magazine v Falwell comes to small town politics.
Repeatedly saying so isn't harassment under Florida law, court says.
So holds an Eleventh Circuit panel; Judge Andrew Brasher's concurring opinion that notes the potential First Amendment problems with imposing liability for such speech.
leads some readers to engage in "threats and harassment" against the business.
can go forward, says a federal court.
An Oregon trial court allowed the case to go forward, but the Oregon Court of Appeals threw it out.
"that which may be immediately or remotely interpreted as demeaning or belittling to him" struck down as unconstitutionally vague.
So holds the D.C. Court of Appeals, D.C.'s equivalent of a state supreme court.
The student had “posted a screenshot of a friend with a cosmetic mud mask on her face with the caption ‘when he says he’s only into black girls’ on her Instagram account.”
