“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.
What counts as "bullying and harassing" behavior, you might ask? The bill doesn't say.
"[N]early every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing.... But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff's speech."
That's the law in Delaware, it turns out.
From leading liberal constitutional law professor Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern), in the Chronicle of Higher Education.
for saying "LGBTQ+" "Pride" message is "against our biblical doctrine."
The court concluded that the conversation violated a previous order barring the ex-wife "from making any other public allegations against the Petitioner, Joe Stark, on social media (on any platform) or to his employer which may affect Petitioner's reputation or employment."
That was the justification for a trial court order, which the North Carolina Court of Appeals has just reversed.
The decision raises more questions than it answers, but it does note that there is no general First Amendment exception for speech about "matters of private concern" (i.e., daily life matters unrelated to bigger ideological questions).
It's an unconstitutional prior restraint, the court holds.
In context, it seems clear that the post's reference to "Chinese" is indeed a reference to the Chinese government, not to people of Chinese extraction.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
Some speculation from my forthcoming article.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m continuing to serialize a new law review article draft of mine.
Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech
I’m serializing a new law review article draft of mine.
Carlsbad City Council member Cori Schumacher had claimed the critics’ speech was threatening; no, the judge eventually held: "Simply calling these posts threats is not enough."
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
