On June 1st, a street artist filed a lawsuit against the NYPD and the city of New York after one of his murals was covered up during a graffiti clean up campaign. The artist claims his free speech rights were violated.
The publisher’s actions highlight an unresolved tension between the desire to hold bad actors accountable and the possibility of depriving the public of valuable literary and artistic ideas. While some have expressed concerns about W.W. Norton's decision to stop printing and distributing a widely praised biography, others see it as a step towards a future where powerful people are held accountable for their behavior.
Watch the full video interview between writer Salman Rushdie and human rights advocate and PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel as they discuss today's most pressing free speech issues, including the monopoly of social media giants and the rise in global attacks on free expression.
A grand jury in Texas indicted Netflix for streaming “Cuties,” a French film that has some critics in the U.S. saying that the film sexualizes young girls. Netflix called the charges without merit. "Cuties is a social commentary against the sexualization of young children," the company said.
The suit, filed on behalf of two documentary film organizations, argues that the registration requirement violates the First Amendment, is too broad in scope, and has not been proven to be necessary to national security interests.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuits reinstated a Minnesota lawsuit brought by two filmmakers who claim […]
A public library in Leander, Texas canceled an event involving Lilah Sturges, a trans woman and graphic novelist, after city […]
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down a ban on registering words or symbols that are "immoral" or "scandalous." The case was brought by designer Eric Brunetti who created a clothing line in 1990 that prominently displayed the “FUCT” logo. Brunetti had been trying to obtain approval for a trademark since 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has consistently denied his application. The agency contends that “FUCT” violates federal law that prohibits words that are “shocking” or “offensive” on trademarked material.