On April 5th, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the Second Circuit’s decision in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Donald Trump, a long-running lawsuit challenging former President Donald Trump’s pattern of blocking critics from his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump.
A day before Joe Biden's inauguration, the Justice Department under Donald Trump made a last-minute effort to undo a major court decision related to public official's social media accounts.
Passed only seven years after the ratification of the Constitution, the Sedition Act forced the young country to decide not just whether it was truly dedicated to freedom of speech, but also what that idea would even mean in a democratic republic.
Public officials using libel suits as a weapon against the press is nothing new. In the time of Times v. Sullivan, southern officials had brought nearly $300 million in libel actions against the press. For reference, Nunes alone has brought just over $900 million in defamation claims in a twelve-month period.
Law Professor Helen Norton explains how a case currently pending for Supreme Court review could potentially expand First Amendment protection for public employees who report on government corruption and or speak as a public "citizen."
“Despite the justices' unwillingness to bring the modern technologies of video into the courtroom, the COVID-19 pandemic reveals how some communication technologies can change the culture of the proceedings and how the court communicates with the public,” Ron Collins said in response to the court's decision.
An article written by Ashley Feinberg about Kavanaugh's high school class implied that Derrick Evans was implicated in the death of David Kennedy.
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.