Log in to access all content
Not a member yet?
Join MLRC today!
We provide you with essential tools to advance First Amendment and media rights, and a supportive community in which to discuss emerging legal issues and the future of communication.
Not a member yet?
We provide you with essential tools to advance First Amendment and media rights, and a supportive community in which to discuss emerging legal issues and the future of communication.
In-person events take center stage as Covid risks ebb.
The first in a series of articles written by Laura Prather, of Haynes Boone, about things she learned as a Fulbright Scholar researching, advocating, and raising awareness of SLAPPs in the EU, UK, and US
The district court concluded that the text and headlines of each of the defendants’ articles were substantially true and did not materially differ from, and were “a fair representation” of, what Yates himself said.
Passed by Washington in 2021 and other states since, UPEPA provides expedited procedures and substantial protections to protect expressive rights against abusive litigation.
In one of the first appellate decisions interpreting and applying the state’s new anti-SLAPP law, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion, dismissing an endodontist’s defamation case against a former patient who posted negative reviews about her treatment, and ordering the trial court to award the patient her attorneys’ fees.
This case should serve as a reminder to media defense attorneys of the many arguments available at the initial motion phase, even in states like Michigan where there is no anti-SLAPP law.
The court found the articles posted on the website to be protected by the First Amendment because a reasonable reader would understand they were satire and did not convey actual facts.
In a strongly worded opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals last week vacated a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against a state prosecution of Josh Stein, North Carolina’s Attorney General.
Judge Klein’s order is a mixed result. On one hand, it strengthens the protections of Minnesota’s shield law, At the same time, though, Judge Klein explicitly refuses to address the First Amendment issues and orders Unicorn Riot and Georgiades to expend resources producing a privilege log.
Judge Truncale concluded that the film was likely constitutionally protected by the First Amendment and that the claim that the film contains child pornography is flawed.
This article reviews how Gonzalez came before the Court, discusses the principal arguments that the parties and amici have raised, and previews proposed Congressional actions.
Dutch lawyer on his career path, things to do in Amsterdam, and the legacy of Spinoza.