A recent ruling in a federal court suggests that state laws aiming to protect children from the risks of excessive social media use may face First Amendment obstacles.
Articles Tagged with free speech
Supreme Court to Hear Jack Daniel’s Case Involving Trademark and Free Speech Rights
On Monday, November 21, 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. The lawsuit seeks to clarify whether VIP's Jack Daniel's themed dog-toys are protected from trademark infringement claims due to VIP's First Amendment interest in using Jack Daniel's trademarks on the toys.
The Onion Files Amicus Brief in Support of Parody
The Onion has filed a Supreme Court brief in support of a man arrested and prosecuted for making fun of a police department on social media, arguing that parodists should not be obligated to "pop the balloon in advance."
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Student Free Speech Case Evolves Jurisprudence for the Internet Era
The United States Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of protecting public school students' free speech rights on Wednesday, June 23, 2021, in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. The ruling expounds upon Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, bringing student free speech jurisprudence into the internet era. "[S]ometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary."
Trump’s Facebook Ban Will Stand. For Now.
On Wednesday, the Facebook Oversight Board upheld former President Donald Trump’s January suspension from the platform, citing his creation of “an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible.”
U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Off-Campus Student Free Speech Case
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments today, April 28, 2021, in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. At issue in the case is whether the precedential case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.
Free Speech and the Impeachment Trial of 2021
The second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump began this week in the Senate with Trump’s lawyers arguing in part that the former President’s statements are protected under the First Amendment as free speech.
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Free Speech
Google Defeats Allegations of “Silencing” Tulsi Gabbard
A federal district court judge ruled that Google is not a state actor, so the First Amendment does not apply to its efforts to regulate its platform.
Federal District Court Rules Against Missouri State Representative Who Blocked Critical Constituent on Twitter
On Friday, August 16, 2019, Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri ruled that Mike Campbell was deprived of his constitutional right to free speech when Missouri Representative Cheri Toalson Reisch blocked Campbell from her Twitter page after Campbell retweeted a comment criticizing Reisch's political views. Judge Wimes granted Campbell's request for declaratory and injunctive relief against Reisch under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Holds President Donald J. Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Users From Accessing Twitter Account
On Tuesday, July 9, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that President Donald J. Trump engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment, by blocking certain users' access to his Twitter account based on those users' speech on Twitter. The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University sued the President on behalf of seven Twitter users who were blocked from the President's Twitter account after said users tweeted replies to the President critical of his personality and policies. Judge Barrington D. Parker concluded "that the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."
