Business owners have a First Amendment right to speak on their businesses’ social media accounts about matters of public concern without fear of government retaliation.
The Supreme Court should grant the petition to address how listeners’ rights can inform the often confounding distinction between content-neutral and content-based expression.
The First Amendment does not stop at the schoolhouse gate. In our increasingly polarized world, teachers, no less than students, deserve the protection of the First Amendment.
In this case, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District is a government agency claiming First Amendment protection to do what the First Amendment forbids—shutting down legitimate claims against government action. ... This inversion of a state anti-SLAPP statute to reduce an individual's First Amendment rights is unconstitutional.
"This Court should hold that S3292 is a content-based speech restriction. Otherwise, government may be emboldened to burden more speech and restrict yet more advice offered by various professionals to willing clients."
West Virginia’s statute muzzles truthful professional speech because consumers might respond with poor choices. We ask the Supreme Court to halt this prior restraint.
On behalf of PLF Client Prof. Elizabeth Weiss, PLF tells the Fourth Circuit that academics should be allowed to prove their claims when institutions retaliate against them for their speech or opinions.