"[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."
"Publicly expressing anger toward an elected official is not a basis for entry of an injunction. In public debate, elected officials must tolerate insulting remarks—even angry, outrageous speech—to provide breathing room for the First Amendment."
"Even if past [mentally distressing] speech that an offender made to a person ... could be considered ... integral to the criminal conduct of menacing by stalking [and thus unprotected], we do not believe that this principle may be applied categorically to future speech ... directed to others."
With a special cameo appearance by Eric Holder.
Fortunately, the Florida Court of Appeal reversed the order.
The Mississippi Court of Appeals just overturned the conviction, and struck down the underlying statute, which banned posting messages "whether truthful or untruthful" "for the purpose of causing injury to any person."
The California Court of Appeal reversed, in an interesting case about allegations of physical abuse—and claims that the allegations were themselves a form of "abuse."
"Touching someone's arm to get their attention, I would have thought was normal."
The Commission on Human Rights is likely running afoul of the First Amendment.
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