- Opinion
A decision today from the Florida Court of Appeal.
A decision today from the Florida Court of Appeal.
Speech that criticizes people is fully protected by the First Amendment -- but trial courts often forbid it nonetheless.
Venkat Balasubramani and I have filed a lawsuit challenging this statute.
We've just filed a lawsuit challenging that new Ohio statute.
The bill is aimed at preventing the publication of certain "personal identifying information," including Social Security numbers, but it also covers names, photographs and places of employment.
So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held yesterday in Commonwealth v. Bigelow.
The Florida District Court of Appeal reverses yet another stop-talking-about-the-plaintiff injunction (and, in the process, the ban on gun possession that often goes along with such anti-"harassment" orders).
A friend-of-the-court brief in the latest case in the Aaron Walker/Brett Kimberlin saga.
"However laudable the State’s interest in protecting minors from the dangers of online bullying may be, North Carolina’s cyberbullying statute 'create[s] a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.' ... The statute prohibits a wide range of online speech -- whether on subjects of merely puerile interest or on matters of public importance."
Even if the statute is constitutional (which I doubt), by its terms it doesn't apply to the particular speech involved here.
