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
Court Rejects Claim That Columbia Improperly Suspended Students for Justice in Palestine Chapter
N.Y. law provides for some judicial review of private universities' actions, when a university fails to "adhere[] to its own published rules," thus rendering its "actions were arbitrary or capricious"; but that standard, the court holds, wasn't met here.
"Democrats Have Been Acting Like the Proverbial American Tourist in France, …
trying to get their point across by shouting louder in a language only they understand."
Project Veritas' Defamation Lawsuit Against CNN Can Go Forward
Veritas had been suspended from Twitter for including an interview subject's house number; CNN "suggested on-air that Twitter banned Veritas for 'promoting misinformation.'"
Quick Reminder: Don't Compare the Final 2020 Popular Vote Totals with Non-Final 2024 Vote Totals
My quick glance at the posted vote totals suggests that there are about 16 million votes not yet counted.
Judge Orders Divorcing Husband to Surrender Gun, Even Without Domestic Violence Restraining Order
Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal just reversed that decision.
Can Vanderbilt Student Suspended for Alleged False Accusations Sue Vanderbilt Pseudonymously?
No, says a federal Magistrate Judge, though the classmate (who isn't a party to the suit) is entitled to have his name pseudonymized.
"Motion to Admit Drake's Live Mascot to the Preliminary Injunction Hearing"
Not something you see every day.
Free Speech Unmuted: Protests, Public Pressure Campaigns, Tort Law, and the First Amendment
The latest podcast episode from Prof. Jane Bambauer (Florida) and me.
Are Punitive Damages Available in Publishers' Lawsuit Over Harassment Campaign by eBay Employees?
Fort the answer—or rather, answers—a court has to resolve a choice of law question.
Journal of Free Speech Law: "Should We Trust the Censor?," by Keith E. Whittington
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.
"We Need Not Apply Newton's First Law of Motion to Legal Precedent"
"[E]rroneous precedent once in motion need not stay in motion."
Journal of Free Speech Law: My "The Future of Government Pressure on Social Media Platforms"
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.
Book Review (by Prof. Jacob Mchangama): "Fearless Speech" Doesn't Take First Amendment History Seriously
A review of Prof. Mary Anne Franks' new book, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment (plus a response by Prof. Franks to Prof. Mchangama's Tweeted criticisms, and a reply by Prof. Mchangama).
Journal of Free Speech Law: "The Free Speech Clause as a Deregulatory Tool," by Alexander Tsesis
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.
Texas Public University Restrictions on Anti-Israel Speech Likely Violate First Amendment
So holds a federal court (correctly, I think), considering restrictions that were prompted by Texas Governor Abbott's General Order GA-44.
Journal of Free Speech Law: "The First Amendment Meets the Virtual Public Square," by Allison Stanger
A new article from the Daedalus (Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences) Future of Free Speech Symposium.
Recent Political Candidate Is Public Figure for Libel Law Purposes
The allegedly libelous claims about the candidate were made three months after he lost the election; a Magistrate Judge had held the candidate was no longer a public figure, but the District Court disagreed.
Massive Campaign of Online Insults Can Lead to Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Liability
The court also concluded defendant had libeled plaintiff, but the court held that even the nonlibelous expressions of opinion could lead to emotional distress liability. The total verdict of $6.8M.
