Eugene Volokh is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford, and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor at UCLA School of Law. Naturally, his posts here (like the opinions of the other bloggers) are his own, and not endorsed by any institution.
Eugene Volokh
Latest from Eugene Volokh
Nina Jankowicz's Libel Lawsuit Against Fox News Network Dismissed by Federal Judge
The judge concludes Fox's statements about Jankowicz's plans as Executive Director of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board, and the circumstances of her leaving the position, were constitutionally protected opinion—and, even if they were viewed as factual assertions, were substantially true.
"Someone Must Have Taken the Bar Exam for You" Was Just Insult, Not Libel
"[A]nyone who has used Facebook is aware that it is a platform that breeds spiteful and juvenile exchanges."
"It Is Their Care That the Gear Engages; It Is Their Care That the Switches Lock"
"It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock."
Moving to Unseal Material in Pennsylvania Sen. Douglas Mastriano's Lawsuit Related to His Ph.D. Thesis
Sen. Mastriano (who is running for reelection to the state senate, and who ran in 2022 for Governor) is suing for, among other things, libel—but trying to keep the allegedly libelous material under seal.
Calling Someone an "Amateur" May Sometimes Be Defamatory
“This Court rejects Defendants’ argument an ordinary person could find ‘amateur,’ in this circumstance, to refer to ‘one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than a profession’ or a ‘devotee, [or] admirer,’ given the surrounding context and circumstance.”
District Court Rejects Magistrate Judges' Gag Order on Publishing Name of Retroactively Pseudonymized Litigant
"Professor Volokh may not ... publicly disclose Plaintiff's name or personal identifying information in any future writings, speeches, or other public discourse."
No Qualified Immunity When "Public Officials … Baselessly Threaten[] a Citizen-Journalist With Legal Action"
"if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law."
Libel, Fire, Healing Chakras, and Real Housewives of New York
“The article also documents Plaintiff’s four failed attempts at appearing on the Real Housewives of New York, and the potentially circumstantial evidence that the fire was used as a publicity stunt as it occurred just one day prior to Plaintiff joining a talk show wherein she talked extensively about the fire.”
Journal of Free Speech Law: "Adding Injury to Insult: Kant on Defaming the Dead," by Prof. David Sussman
An article from the Defamation: Philosophical and Legal Perspectives symposium, sponsored by the Center for Legal Philosophy at UC Irvine.
Court Vacates "Stalking … Protective Order" Entered Against Critic of Elected Official
The official argued, among other things, that defendant's speech constituted "words of incitement" intended "to rile up the Black community to attack [her]."
Injunction Ordering Citizens Not to Mention Coroner in Online Posts (and Barring Them From Possessing Weapons)
An Ohio trial court issued the injunction, but the Ohio Court of Appeals has just set it aside.
Free Speech Unmuted: Moody v. Netchoice and Murthy v. Missouri
Jane Bambauer and I quickly run down what happened in these two cases (both of which involved First Amendment challenges and social media).
Justice Thomas Argues the Court Should at Some Point Consider Whether "Assault Weapons" Bans Violate Second Amendment
Justice Alito takes a similar view, but, at least in this case, this view didn't get the four votes necessary to grant review.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch Argue Court Should Review Scope of 47 U.S.C. § 230 Immunity
But, at least in this case, this view didn't get the four votes necessary to grant review.
Ohio S. Ct. Vacates Order Sealing Documents at Defendant's Behest in Alleged Child Rape Case
The defendant had alleged that he, his family, and his lawyer had been threatened by the public, but the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that the trial court wasn't given adequate evidence to justify sealing.
