- Florida “health coach” charges for nutrition advice, isn’t a licensed dietitian. Does she have a First Amendment defense? [Scott Shackford]
- Results of Russian social-media manipulation episode could include foot in door for regulation of Internet speech [John Samples, Cato]
- Some in Australia having trouble distinguishing “impersonation” of government from anti-government satire [Timothy Geigner, TechDirt]
- Before deep-pocket publications can report on sexual misconduct by persons in high places, gauntlet of legal review needs to be run with special attention to on-the-record sources [Mike Masnick, TechDirt]
- Ohio lawmaker introduces anti-SLAPP bill that pioneers novel protections for anonymous speakers [John Samples, Cato]
- “Nadine Strossen’s Next Book — ‘Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship'” [Ronald K.L. Collins] “Sanford Ungar Heads New Free Speech Project at Georgetown University” [same]
Filed under: Australia, First Amendment, free speech, hate speech, libel slander and defamation, occupational licensure, parody, sexual assault, social media
2 Comments
“Before deep-pocket publications can report on sexual misconduct by persons in high places, gauntlet of legal review needs to be run with special attention to on-the-record sources”
Not just Gawker, but Rolling Stone. In cases where the accusation is for the most part the entire case, no forensics and when old enough to predate social media likely little supportive evidence, then witness credibility is essential before painting someone with what will be an enduring internet smear to their reputation and wellbeing.
Aren’t the russians free to speak and advertise too?