I used to be on the California Appellate Regulation Podcast discussing this, although my evaluation is not restricted to California. An excerpt from the podcast abstract:
Prof. Eugene Volokh joined us to debate restraining orders, what number of of them violate the First Modification as illegal prior restraints, and how one can spot the First Modification issues. The aim of a restraining orders is to get an individual to cease harassing you, however “harassment” could be a fairly obscure time period—and the identical goes for “bullying,” “cyberbullying,” “hate speech,” and many others.—particularly when no bodily violence threatened or taking place. The result’s that many restraining orders not solely stop the topic from talking TO the plaintiff, however from talking ABOUT the plaintiff, and final INDEFINITELY….
[Some] objects mentioned within the episode:
- One-to-One Speech vs. One-to-Many Speech, Legal Harassment Legal guidelines, and “Cyberstalking”, 107 Nw. U. L. Rev. 731 (2013)
- Overbroad Injunctions In opposition to Speech (Particularly in Libel and Harassment Circumstances), 45 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol. 147 (2022).
- Group for a Higher Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415 (1971)
- Chan v. Ellis, 296 Ga. 838 (Ga. 2015)
- “The First Amendment and Refusals to Deal” by way of Motive
- Movies from this episode shall be posted at Tim Kowal’s YouTube channel.
The submit Free Speech and "Harassment Restraining Orders" appeared first on Motive.com.