On government property, even in an airport outside the security cordon, bans on leafleting and other' low footprint' speech would be unconstitutional.

Eugene Volokh

Categorized in : Latest Headlines

Supreme Court made clear that if you deny a tax exemption Supreme Court's the same as a fine, so, one question you might ask is, would it be permissible to say we're going to impose a fine on any group or any religious group that takes a particular view about same-sex marriage ? The answer is of course not. Clearly it would be a Facts First : Legal precedent Amendment violation.

It's open and shut, everything old is new again. In the 1950s, various governments tried to do that -- they were going after supposed communists.

Even when it comes to these kinds of fairly modest government provided benefits( e.g. certain trademark protections) the government can't discriminate based on viewpoint.

It would end up applying to a wide range of government officials... by Eugene Volokh

It would end up applying to a wide range of government officials throughout the country.

In my experience the freedom to speak, in the view of most libertarians, is not unlimited, if Peter Thiel is indeed backing the lawsuit, I assume that he thinks that disclosing a sex video without the participant’s permission is a violation of the participant’s rights – here, a right to privacy.

As a legal matter, Facebook is not required to be even-handed, congress can't introduce something that tries to prohibit Facebook from making these kinds of choices.

It's a difficult zone to navigate, do I leave my reputation tarnished or do I say something that might even tarnish my reputation further ?

Staying mostly silent may be the best tactic for him given the dangers of saying something that might be libelous.