Ahead of the election, a reproductive health law scholar lays out the broad strokes of what both Harris and Trump have done regarding abortion policy while in office.
In recent years, Australia has been dubbed the “defamation capital of the world”. High-profile legal stoushes in the headlines seem to back this up. How can we reconcile this with freedom of speech?
Americans agree that democracy requires freedom of speech. But a large minority also thinks it’s acceptable to bar certain subjects or speakers from public debate.
Florida and Texas sought to prevent social media companies from deciding which posts can be promoted, demoted or blocked. The Supreme Court said the tech companies can moderate as they please.
In pleading guilty to one count under the US Espionage Act as part of a plea deal, the WikiLeaks founder’s case has left some large legal concepts unresolved.
The law forcing TikTok to be sold or banned is meant to protect Americans from Chinese government influence and privacy intrusions. But does it undermine a bedrock American principle?
These cases have asked the justices to consider how to apply some of the most sweeping constitutional protections – those of free speech – to an extremely complex online communication environment.
A college junior who has gained a following by sharing high-profile people’s private flight information says that he is sharing public information. Others, like Taylor Swift, say that he is stalking.
University codes of conduct support their mission to educate. But it’s not easy to balance those codes with the values of free speech, as the resignation of a prominent university president shows.
The first female justice on the Supreme Court was also the last justice to have served as an elected official. And her contributions to the court reflected her political experience and pragmatism.