Ban on "Mentioning Child/Parental Alienation" and "Anything About" Ex, "Including But Not Limited to" …
"that which may be immediately or remotely interpreted as demeaning or belittling to him" struck down as unconstitutionally vague.
"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.”
No success for the plaintiffs, at least at this stage.
"If I disagreed or offered another opinion, I was told I had cognitive dissonance," Josh Diemert says.
Threats of suicide and of disclosing an ex's sexual orientation may count as threats for harassment purposes (for the non-polyamorous as much as for the polyamorous, of course).
but the Michigan Court of Appeals reverses.
“Students ... remain free to express offensive and other unpopular viewpoints [at least outside school], but that does not include a license to disseminate severely harassing invective targeted at particular classmates in a manner that is readily and foreseeably transmissible to those students.”
Trial court: "I understand that you have a first amendment privilege, but sometimes the first amendment privilege contravenes certain statutes that are enacted by the State ...." Appellate court: That's "a misunderstanding of the relationship between statutes and constitutions."
So holds the Pennsylvania intermediate appellate court, rejecting a First Amendment defense.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill in September that will chip away at a policy that has long been criticized as enabling racially-motivated policing.
The return of the trollish forum demonstrates the futility of bans on bad speech.
How, if at all, should we try to be nice in an inherently not-nice occupation?
My argument: "Petitioner Jane Doe—a frequent unsuccessful litigant—is asking this Court to impose unconstitutional prior restraint to prevent a law professor from writing about important, publicly available cases about pseudonymity."
Cloudflare's decision brings up fundamental questions about how internet infrastructure companies should operate.
Clearly hostile, but was it threatening?
The Eighth Circuit tries to rein in the criminalization of the intentional infliction of emotional distress tort.
“Defendants cannot claim a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to regulate C.G.’s off-campus speech by simply invoking the words ‘harass’ and ‘hate’ when C.G.’s speech does not constitute harassment and its hateful nature is not regulable in this context.”
Plus a nice catalog of how high the bar can be for punishable threats under New York law.
likely unconstitutional, holds a federal district court.
The complaining student alleged the students' remarks were "harassing and threatening" him because of his conservative "political affiliation" and his "religious beliefs."
When a judge hearing a protection order petition thinks the defendant is engaged in "harassment," which can include two or more statements the judge thinks is libelous, the judge can effectively criminalize future libels of the plaintiff by the defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that the Wardlaw-Hartridge School had failed to comply with its own procedural rules in the Student-Parent Handbook.
The court concludes that the federal "cyberstalking" statute covers only speech intended to "put the victim in fear of death or bodily injury" or to "distress the victim by threatening, intimidating, or the like."
Under the reasoning of the Georgetown University Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity & Affirmative Action (IDEAA) report in the Ilya Shapiro matter, a wide range of public speech criticizing religions, political parties, veterans, etc. could be "prohibit[ed] harassment."
The trial court reasoned: "You guys ... have a spat on Facebook.... Nobody cares about these s[p]ats. Just block them and move on."
when the lawyers are investigating allegations that the employee "had romantic or sexual feelings for one of the students she coached."
So holds the Eighth Circuit, even though a state trial court had indeed enjoined the Christian Action League's mailings under that law.
No, says the Appeals Court of Massachusetts: "We take this opportunity to reiterate that, where a c. 258E order is sought on the basis of speech alone, the plaintiff must prove that the speech rose to the level of true threats or fighting words and not merely that it was 'harassing, intimidating, or abusive in the colloquial sense.'"
Now the critic's First Amendment lawsuit over this (and other matters) can go forward.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks