- “Money spent trying to spread a political message is speech, whether you like the message or not.” [Michael Kinsley on McCutcheon v. FEC, earlier]
- “Letter: Ken Avidor on Being Silenced By a Defamation Suit” [Romenesko]
- “Canada’s first Twitter harassment trial has taken a strange twist.” [Christie Blatchford, National Post]
- In union leader’s defamation suit, Philadelphia court orders anonymous commenter unmasked [CBS Philly]
- New Jersey ruling letting parents be sued over kids’ Facebook posts will chill speech [Hans Bader/CEI, earlier]
- More dispatches from Michael Mann-Mark Steyn litigation showdown [Steyn, Charles Cooke] Bonus: Steyn on Andrew Bolt case in Australia and on Nevada protests’ “First Amendment Area” (“The ‘First Amendment Area’ is supposed to be something called ‘the United States’.”)
- “True-crime author Ann Rule’s suit against Seattle Weekly tossed” [KING]
Filed under: Australia, campaign regulation, free speech in Canada, libel slander and defamation, Mark Steyn, online speech, Twitter
3 Comments
>Money spent trying to spread a political message is speech
No, money is not “speech,” except in strawman arguments set up by opponents. But money is a crucial means for mass dissemination of speech, aka “the press.” The drafters of the First Amendment realized that one was ineffective without the other.
[…] Hattip: Overlawyered […]
[…] Michael Mann’s defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review and others. Earlier here, here, here, […]