Continuing to Send Unwanted Political Mailings to a Business Isn't "Harassment" Under Minnesota Law
So holds the Eighth Circuit, even though a state trial court had indeed enjoined the Christian Action League's mailings under that law.
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."
We’ve filed an amicus brief supporting a motion to dismiss the charges.
So holds the Washington Court of Appeals.
"The state may restrict a convicted felon's right ... to possess a firearm," so a state may order a civil case defendant to stop saying things online about plaintiff that "severe[ly] emotional distress" that plaintiff.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals rightly reverses.
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.
Unconstitutional, says a Massachusetts appellate court (correctly).
They are still protected by the First Amendment.
The Eleventh Circuit threw out a lawsuit brought by former NRA President Marion Hammer.
The Vermont Supreme Court reversed the order (which had required defendant to stay 300 feet away from the plaintiff).
But the judge threw out the prosecution, on the ground that the order violated the First Amendment.
"The First Amendment limits Congress; Congress does not limit the First Amendment."