Re-printed with permission by First Amendment News, constitutional scholar Stephen Rohde examines the First Amendment arguments made by John Eastman, former attorney for Donald Trump who is currently facing disciplinary proceedings in California that could lead to his disbarment.
We asked five legal scholars — Samantha Barbas, Martin Garbus, Lyrissa Lidsky, Timothy Zick and Sandra Baron — to give their thoughts on Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuit against Fox following the recent settlement reached in the case.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two cases pivotal to online speech: Gonzalez v. Google on Feb. 21 and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh on Feb. 22. Both cases question the liability of social media platforms and search engines regarding speech hosted on their sites, and if recommendation algorithms could be responsible for aiding terrorist activity.
Today in this age of increased political polarization and the ubiquity of social media communications, the need for a clear definition of what exactly constitutes a true threat is even more important.
Former President Donald Trump filed a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN arguing the network has maligned him with “fake news” for the purposes of damaging his political future heading into 2024. First Amendment Watch asked First Amendment scholar Timothy Zick to annotate the 29-page lawsuit for the legal claims it made and the precedents it cited.
First Amendment lawyer Lyrissa Lidsky weighs in on a recently upheld social media censorship law in Texas that would bar platforms with more than 50 million users from removing content with political viewpoints. A different circuit court in Florida filed a preliminary injunction against a similar law. Since both federal appeals courts disagreed, only the Supreme Court can decide if the platforms have a First Amendment right to censor, or if they don’t.
First Amendment Watch asked Mchangama, a free speech historian and scholar, his perspective on the evolution of blasphemy laws and the context surrounding the vicious attack against Salman Rushdie, a Distinguished Writer in Residence at NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute.
Florida has placed itself at odds with the well-settled First Amendment rule prohibiting government officials from “subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions . . . for speaking out.” Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).