A federal judge has allowed the (now-graduated) student's discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and breach of contract case to go forward.
"Two officers convinced a prosecutor to charge Blackwell with stalking. But a judge acquitted him. Blackwell then sued the manager and officers for violating the First Amendment by inducing this prosecution in retaliation for his political speech."
The Second Circuit holds that the challengers sufficiently alleged that the ban is broad enough to cover their constitutionally protected speech (including speech that may offend some based on gender identity, race, religion, and more); the court didn't reach the question whether the ban actually violates the First Amendment, which the trial court will now have to take up.
Sarrita Adams, who was a prominent public critic of the English Lucy Letby murder trial, got that order almost four months ago.
But the Arizona Court of Appeals just reversed, concluding that speech about a person generally isn't "harassment," even if unwanted speech directed to the person may be.
Plaintiff had argued that defendants' publicizing the religious court's statement "serves as a form of social pressure, calling on the community to shun or ostracize the individual until they comply with the court's demands."
displayed on defendant's car and on her fence facing neighbors who have a transgender child; an appellate court reverses the conviction on procedural grounds, without resolving the First Amendment issue.
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.
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