liberty


303 Creative LLC: A win for free expression from SCOTUS 2

The first article I came across on the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative LLC decision was an outright lie, claiming the Court had ruled businesses can now refuse service to same-sex couples. Creating panic is what a lot of news sites do best, and lots of people on social media are helping to spread the misinformation. What it actually ruled was this:

The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado
seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the
past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they
thought vital at the time. But abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Colorado cannot deny that promise consistent with the First Amendment.

(more…)


A Worldcon in Egypt?

The Chengdu Worldcon is collapsing from lack of organization, likely made worse by the need to satisfy the governmental authorities. A bid for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, has fortunately been withdrawn. It’s hard to say whether China or Saudi Arabia is worse on human rights, but Saudi Arabia holds a clear edge in sheer brutality. Replacing the JeddahCon bid is one for PharaohCon in Cairo.

You don’t have to be a flaming libertarian to recognize that every country in the world has human rights issues. The question is how serious they are and how they would affect people attending the convention. Egypt isn’t as bad as Saudi Arabia or China, nor as good as the United States or Canada. How concerned should potential supporters be about what it is doing and might do?
(more…)


New York’s threat to free speech on the Web 1

A law recently passed by the New York State Legislature poses a serious threat to online speech. FIRE is already challenging this outrageous law, which I doubt can survive a legal battle, but in the meantime, it poses a threat to anyone running a site that’s read in New York and allows user input.

The law applies to the ill-defined category of “social media networks.” That doesn’t just mean Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. It could apply to anyone who runs a Mastodon instance or even runs a blog that allows comments. FIRE says:
(more…)


A writer’s guide to freedom of speech and press in America

People in the United States enjoy some of the strongest legal protections on their speech and writing in the world. Saying some things is illegal, though, and others open you to getting sued. There’s a lot of misinformation around on what is and isn’t considered free speech. Here’s a quick rundown of some common claims. US Constitution

Standard disclaimer: This isn’t legal advice. It’s my best understanding. See a lawyer when in doubt. In some cases, I’ve cited court cases you can look up and study.
(more…)


Writers threatened with $300K fines

According to an article by Natylie Baldwin on antiwar.com, the United States Treasury Department has threatened writers with fines of more than $300,000 if they write for the Strategic Culture Foundation, a Russia-based online journal.

The writers, Daniel Lazare and Michael Averko, reportedly got letters from the Treasury Department, delivered by the FBI, claiming they were in violation of sanctions against SCF and could be subject to a “civil monetary penalty of up to the greater of $311,562 or twice the value of the underlying transaction.” They say that other writers have received similar letters.
(more…)


Judges assault First Amendment

A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th circuit should seriously worry writers. It says that the government can ignore the First Amendment when it feels like it. In the case in question, the court acknowledged that website design work is “pure speech,” which means it’s protected by the First Amendment. “Appellants are forced to create websites — and thus, speech—that they would otherwise refuse.” But then it argued that the State of Colorado has a “compelling interest” in forcing a website designer to work for the plaintiff. It ruled that, in spite of the plain First Amendment violation, the designer can be forced to create speech.
(more…)


The “Pro Act” bill threatens free expression

The more I hear about the “Pro Act” bill (it’s not an act till Biden signs it), especially from its supporters, the more convinced I am that it’s a threat not just to writers’ livelihoods but to free expression.

As I wrote in an earlier post, the bill is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the surface, it just grants freelancers a freedom we didn’t have before, the freedom to deal with clients through organizations. This ignores the reality of labor law, which gives unions the power to compel employers by force of law to enter into agreements. Outsiders often have the choice of joining the union, giving the union money without joining, or not working for a unionized employer.
(more…)


An assault in Congress on freelance writers

Previously I’d written about California’s AB-5, which put heavy restrictions on the number of articles freelance writers could sell. That was ultimately amended, after some major companies stopped using freelancers.

A bill now in Congress is raising similar concerns. It’s different from AB-5 in important respects but is still disturbing. The “PRO Act” has passed the House of Representatives and gone to the Senate. It would require clients to treat freelance writers as employees, but only in certain respects. To be exempt, writers would have to pass all three requirements of the “ABC test”:
(more…)


Dr. Seuss becomes “Doctor Sues” (UPDATED: APPARENT FALSE REPORT)

Update: It now appears that the alleged legal threat by Dr. Seuss Enterprises was a forgery. A tweet by Seth Dillon claiming receipt of the legal notice is “no longer available.” A Daily Wire post which reported the supposed threat now has the following added at the top:

Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire that the legal threat is fake and that Seuss Enterprises never demanded the retraction.

“The purported legal notice is a fake. It did not come from Dr. Seuss Enterprises or anyone associated with the organization,” Seuss Enterprises told The Daily Wire.

This morning (April 20), I can’t find anything on Dillon’s Twitter feed either reaffirming or retracting the statement that they received a notice from the Seuss organization. We can all make mistakes (as the original version of this post shows), but we need to correct them, especially when they make someone look bad.

Sorry about conveying erroneous information. Now I have to go back to all the places where I posted links to this article and post updates.

Original post follows…

In March, I wrote that Dr. Seuss Enterprises faced a difficult situation. It now seems I was wrong. They’re just nuts. They discovered a satirical Babylon Bee article and are now threatening to sue.
(more…)


Book discussion: The State Against Blacks by Walter Williams

Economist Walter Williams died on December 2, 2020. As with my post on James Randi, this article is more a memorial to him than a discussion specifically of The State Against Blacks. If you haven’t heard of Williams, Thomas Sowell’s essay on him is a good place to start. It’s worth reading even if you have. (Sowell is 90 years old himself. I hope I don’t have to do a similar piece on him too soon.)
(more…)