HF1434, Minnesota's proposed age-verification bill, simply won't protect children. It mandates that websites hosting speech that is protected by the First Amendment for both adults and young people verify users' identities, often through government IDs or biometric data. The bill's definition of speech that lawmakers deem harmful to minors is notoriously broad—broad enough to sweep in lawful, non-pornographic speech about sexual orientation, sexual health, and gender identity.
Yes, I lost my job for this flag. But this wasn't the first way that the Trump administration had been scaring us into silence as federal workers. There's been no problem with hanging flags up until this point. It's been something that climbers have been doing since humans have been climbing El Cap.
In the opinion released Friday, the court said it was too early to make a judgment call on the constitutionality of the law. That's partly because it's not yet clear how prominently schools may display the religious text, if teachers will refer to the Ten Commandments during classes or if other texts like the Mayflower Compact or the Declaration of Independence will also be displayed, the majority opinion said.
Local News Lawyers for Your Options Medical have vowed to appeal the dismissal. A federal judge sided with state officials Tuesday, agreeing that a Massachusetts public education campaign against crisis pregnancy centers did not violate an anti-abortion organization's constitutional rights. "The issues before the Court are straightforward," U.S. District Court Judge Leo T. Sorokin opined, dismissing a 2024 lawsuit brought by Your Options Medical.
Although social media companies are in many ways villains that have not done nearly enough to protect children on their platforms, they nonetheless should not be held liable based on claims that they are creating addictive and harmful online environments. Last week, a trial began in Los Angeles Superior Court in a lawsuit brought by a woman, referred to in documents as Kaley G.M., against tech giants YouTube and Instagram. (TikTok previously settled with her).
During the 2024 campaign, after years of attacking the media as "enemies of the people," Donald Trump presented himself as not a scourge of free speech but as its champion, promising to be a President who would reclaim this most fundamental right from the "left-wing censorship regime." In his second Inaugural Address, on January 20, 2025, he pledged to reverse "years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression," promising to sign an executive order that same day "to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America." After pausing for a standing ovation led by his new Vice-President, the self-styled free-speech warrior J. D. Vance, Trump added, "Never again will the immense power of the state be weaponized to persecute political opponents. Something I know something about. We will not allow that to happen, it will not happen again. Under my leadership we will restore fair, equal, and impartial justice under the constitutional rule of law."
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Pentagon from slapping Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) with a punishment over a video urging military brass to resist illegal orders that Kelly recorded with five other lawmakers. Judge Richard Leon, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, ruled that the action against Kelly amounted to a violation of rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Associated Press reported Thursday.
In the past year, DHS has consistently targeted people engaged in First Amendment activity. Among other things, the agency has issued subpoenas to technology companies to unmask or locate people who have documented ICE's activities in their community, criticized the government, or attended protests. These subpoenas are unlawful, and the government knowns it. When a handful of users challenged a few of them in court with the help of ACLU affiliates in Northern California and Pennsylvania, DHS them rather than waiting for a decision.
Whether Musk can defeat the SEC lawsuit without Trump's intervention remains to be seen as the lawsuit advances. In her opinion, the judge found that the government's interest in requiring disclosures to ensure fair markets outweighed Musk's fears that disclosures compelled speech revealing his "thoughts" and "strategy." Accepting Musk's arguments would be an "odd" choice to break "new ground," she suggested, as it could foreseeably impact a wide range of laws.
Ed. Note: A weekly roundup of just a few items from Howard Bashman's How Appealing blog, the Web's first blog devoted to appellate litigation. Check out these stories and more at How Appealing. Handling of Pretti investigation has some prosecutors on verge of quitting; Federal prosecutors in Minneapolis, frustrated by the response to the shootings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti, have suggested they could resign en masse": Perry Stein of The Washington Post has this report.
In a column for National Review, McCarthy reminded readers of a point he has previously made: Assuming there is an indictment, whether now or in the near future, if Lemon is going to have to try to get the case thrown out on a pretrial motion to dismiss; the First Amendment does not protect a journalist from being charged with a crime; it may protect him from being convicted.
