Free speech roundup

by Walter Olson on April 14, 2014

  • “Money spent trying to spread a political message is speech, whether you like the message or not.” [Michael Kinsley on McCutcheon v. FEC, earlier]
  • “Letter: Ken Avidor on Being Silenced By a Defamation Suit” [Romenesko]
  • “Canada’s first Twitter harassment trial has taken a strange twist.” [Christie Blatchford, National Post]
  • In union leader’s defamation suit, Philadelphia court orders anonymous commenter unmasked [CBS Philly]
  • New Jersey ruling letting parents be sued over kids’ Facebook posts will chill speech [Hans Bader/CEI, earlier]
  • More dispatches from Michael Mann-Mark Steyn litigation showdown [Steyn, Charles Cooke] Bonus: Steyn on Andrew Bolt case in Australia and on Nevada protests’ “First Amendment Area” (“The ‘First Amendment Area’ is supposed to be something called ‘the United States’.”)
  • “True-crime author Ann Rule’s suit against Seattle Weekly tossed” [KING]

{ 2 trackbacks }

Criticism of books still protected in Washington | Ex Curia
04.16.14 at 12:14 am
Immediate SLAPP-ruling appealability - Overlawyered
04.28.14 at 8:45 am

{ 1 comment }

1 Hugo S. Cunningham 04.14.14 at 1:22 am

>Money spent trying to spread a political message is speech

No, money is not “speech,” except in strawman arguments set up by opponents. But money is a crucial means for mass dissemination of speech, aka “the press.” The drafters of the First Amendment realized that one was ineffective without the other.

Comments on this entry are closed.