article thumbnail

Policing Pronouns: How “Misgendering” is Becoming the New Battleground Over Discrimination

JonathanTurley

The courts, including the state supreme court , ruled for Cross, noting that he could keep his job, adhere to his faith and satisfy the policy by avoiding pronouns altogether. Religious families have said such a rule would require them to leave the public school system as a threshold exclusionary condition for public education.

article thumbnail

Comstocking Sexting: Oklahoma Bill Seeks to Criminalize Sending Lewd Images Outside of Marriage

JonathanTurley

In a 2002 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a provision of federal law that banned computer simulations and virtual pornography under the first amendment. The bill is presumptively unconstitutional in my view, but the Court made an unholy mess of this area in its rulings on obscenity.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

MSNBC Analyst Calls for Liability for Boebert and Carlson … for the Colorado Shootings

JonathanTurley

Previously, MSNBC legal analyst and Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade told MSNBC viewers that Trump could be charged with manslaughter for his role in the January 6 Capitol riot. I was, therefore, gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church.

Tort 46
article thumbnail

Chico State University Employee Pleads Guilty of Hate Crime in Potential Violent Speech Case

JonathanTurley

Ohio , the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “ imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”. That is legitimately concerning and chilling language. In Brandenburg v.

article thumbnail

Trump’s Surprise Witness: Rep. Waters Becomes A Possible Witness Against Her Own Lawsuit

JonathanTurley

Ohio , where the Supreme Court stressed that even “advocacy of the use of force or of law violation” is protected unless it is imminent. These civil lawsuits actually raise claims like the infliction of emotional distress that were directly and unequivocally rejected by the Supreme Court. Trump’s Jan.

article thumbnail

Democratic Governor Calls For Criminalizing “Lying” About Election Results

JonathanTurley

Indeed, this seems like an effort to evade the constitutional limits placed on incitement crimes by the courts. The Inslee law would create a new and vague category for violent speech. In Brandenburg v.

article thumbnail

“Without any Doubt, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, Beyond any Doubt”: Tribe Declares Trump Committed Attempted Murder

JonathanTurley

Indeed, such a claim would contradict controlling Supreme Court precedent. Ohio , the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that even calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “ imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”. In Brandenburg v.