New answers tagged

7

Only in California. The First Amendment provides a student essentially no protection from discipline by a private university. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) ("The text and original meaning of those Amendments, as well as this Court's longstanding precedents, establish that the Free Speech Clause prohibits only ...


0

It depends on just how "private" the university is. Generally this boils down to money and where its sourced from. While there are a number of universities that are private, a good majority of those do recieve public grant money from a government entity. Because of this, they must be compliant with the U.S. Constitution or risk losing the ...


0

The First Amendment affects what the government can restrict. It does not prevent a private entity from restricting how its resources are used, imposing behaviour standards on their premises or choosing who they do business with. There are limits to this- refusing service based on a protected class is illegal for example- but neither example given comes ...


10

The main reason for this asymmetry is, as the other answers say, that Twitter is a private company and Trump was a government official. It is a little more subtle, in that Twitter is not a regulated public utility. Various businesses such as gas, water, electricity are deemed to be public utilities which serve the basic needs of the general public, and ...


19

An analogy. I own a meeting hall. I rent it out to the US Forest Service, who frequently has public hearings on matters of policy e.g. whether to open a sector for logging or recreation, seal up abandoned mines or leave them for explorers, that kind of thing. Some of these can get pretty loud. The Forest Service decides to let all the loggers into the ...


83

Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability ...


0

The Reasonable Person standard is being used in conjunction with Powell's invocation of Litigation Privilege as her legal defense in this Defamation case. Litigation Privilege is an absolute immunity provided to legal counsel that statements made prior to and during judicial proceedings that would be considered defamatory in other settings. Since litigation ...


5

Some simplified points of basic defamation law as background: A critical element of defamation law is that the defendant said something false. You therefore can't win a defamation case if it's based on a statement that can't be proven false: "You are annoying." "You are ugly." "You are a bad lawyer." If a statement can't be ...


2

This would likely be easy to constitute as electioneering or solicitation of votes as you are advocating for a particular candidate in an polling place beyond the restriction zone (you'll know it when you see it, because all the various candidates will have their sign right on the line as close as they can). For the purposes of this law, it doesn't matter ...


2

Yes, but not here The case on point is Hustler Magazine v Falwell: In an 8–0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Hustler magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting televangelist and political commentator Jerry Falwell Sr. as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since Falwell was a public figure and the parody could not ...


2

The basic purpose of AB 5 was to codify the California courts' standard for determining whether workers who would typically be considered freelancers are employees or independent contractors. The plaintiffs' theory is that AB 5 raises First Amendment issues because its rules for freelance journalists are different from its rules for other freelance writers, ...


Top 50 recent answers are included