The latest twist in the
Barley House case -- and my attempt to intervene.
Because "there is a First Amendment right to videotape police officers while they are conducting their official duties in public," that right applies even over the objections of the people being arrested by the officers.
And that's so even if the van is red, white, and blue.
The reason: Steven Spielberg shot some scenes for Schindler's List in Israel.
Richard Rynearson's online criticisms of Clarence Moriwaki, the court held, were protected by the First Amendment, and thus couldn't justify an antistalking order.
Fired chemistry professor is suing the school.
An amicus brief we recently filed in an interesting and important New York high court case.
Yes, said San Antonio police officers, arguing that a bar's license shouldn't be renewed -- "those remarks show what kind of people Bottom Bracket's owners really are and that they should not be allowed to operate a bar."
But there's no "hate speech" exception to the First Amendment.
The government's theory would equally criminalize insulting posts on a NRA page, or on a pro-Trump organization's page, or on a Communist Party page.
Two recent stories in the news, plus a third item about Malaysia.
A separate holding from today's
Klein v. BOLI (Sweetcakes by Melissa case), from the Oregon Court of Appeals.
The Oregon Court of Appeals upholds a $135,000 damages award imposed on Sweetcakes by Melissa for its owners' refusal to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
A woman is injured in a car accident supposedly because of bad roadway design decision (a dangerous cut in the median) -- so she sues business that had lobbied county to make that decision.
Jia Yueting got an injunction from a Washington state court, forbidding critic Gu Yingqiong from "publish[ing] any posts or [online] commentary concerning" Jia.
So held a federal court in New Jersey yesterday (
GJJM Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Atlantic City).
Bruce Perens' claimed that Open Source Security's license violates the GPL open-source license agreement; that's protected opinion, the court said.
A Federal district court grants a preliminary injunction in
V.A. v. San Pasqual Valley Unified School District.
Seems inconsistent with a 1995 Supreme Court precedent, but the D.C. federal court allowed this, and the D.C. Circuit seems to agree.
It turns out the Supreme Court has dealt with the question, in Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975).