[T]he D.C. Court of appeals held that a jury could impose defamation liability on a conservative media outlet for opining that the risks of climate change were being overhyped by misleading statistical analyses.3 cognitive learning styles petitioner national review, inc. Published a blog post that criticized the so-called “hockey stick” graph created by respondent dr. Michael mann, a scientist who is a leading voice in the climate-change debate.3 cognitive learning styles the validity of the graph has itself been the focus of intense argument, with its opponents objecting to its cherry-picking of data and apples-to-oranges comparisons.3 cognitive learning styles the blog post at issue decried the graph as “deceptive” and “fraudulent,” calling its creation “wrongdoing” and “misconduct.”

Remarkably, the court of appeals concluded that a jury could treat those statements as “provably false” representations of fact and impose liability, without offending the first amendment.3 cognitive learning styles in that court’s view, a reasonable jury “could” construe the statements as conveying not only a subjective and non-falsifiable value judgment about the graph’s legitimacy, but also some (never-specified) objective, verifiable fact about mann’s conduct or his “integrity.” in view of that supposed possible construction, the court remanded the defamation case for discovery and trial.3 cognitive learning styles

John has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in libel and slander cases. He represented G. Gordon liddy in his 10-year lawsuit against john W.3 cognitive learning styles dean and ida maxie wells arising from liddy’s endorsement of a revisionist theory of watergate. During this litigation, john conducted the deposition of virtually every living watergate figure, including john ehrlichman, charles colson, howard hunt, jeb stuart magruder, and john dean.3 cognitive learning styles the case was successfully tried to a defense verdict in 2002. On the plaintiffs’ side, mr. Williams represented dr. Steven levin in the “dirty doctor” case, in which levin was unjustly accused by WJLA of sexually abusing his patients.3 cognitive learning styles the jury returned the largest defamation verdict ever affirmed on appeal in the commonwealth of virginia. In other first amendment litigation, john represented lt.3 cognitive learning styles colonel martha mcsally in her successful challenge of the department of defense regulation that required american servicewomen stationed in saudi arabia to wear the islamic abaya.3 cognitive learning styles

Gregg P. Leslie, cynthia A. Gierhart, seth D. Berlin, shaina jones ward, and mara J. Gassmann were on the brief, in support of appellants, for amici curiae the reporters committee for freedom of the press; the american civil liberties union of the nation’s capital; american society of news editors; association ofalternative newsmedia; the association of american publishers, inc.; bloomberg L.P.; the center for investigative reporting; first amendment coalition; first look media, inc.; fox news network, LLC; gannett co., inc.; the investigative reporting workshop; the national press club; national press photographers association; nbcuniversal media, LLC; newspaper association of america; north jersey media group, inc.; online news association; radio television digital news association; the seattle times company; society of professional journalists; stephens media LLC; time inc.; tribune publishing; the tully center for free speech; D.C.3 cognitive learning styles communications, inc., d/b/a washington city paper; and WP company LLC d/b/a the washington post.

Yesterday, the court handed down its ruling in nieves v.3 cognitive learning styles bartlett. As howard wasserman pointed out in scotusblog, the issue was “whether a plaintiff pursuing a first amendment claim arising from an allegedly retaliatory arrest must show that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff on any charge.3 cognitive learning styles the supreme court had an opportunity to address that issue last term in lozman v. City of riviera beach, but the arrest there was alleged to have resulted from a municipal policy of retaliation, rather than the on-the-spot discretionary decision of an individual officer.3 cognitive learning styles the question the supreme court avoided in lozman is squarely presented in nieves.”

Gorsuch argued that the majority opinion had “no legitimate basis for engrafting a no-probable-cause requirement onto a first amendment retaliatory arrest claim.” he objected to the notion that probable-cause was an absolute bar rather than a factor to be considered. “I would reserve decision on those questions,” he stressed, “until they are properly presented to this court and we can address them with the benefit of full adversarial testing.”

3 cognitive learning styles

Ginsburg: “arrest authority, as several decisions indicate, can be abused to disrupt the exercise of first amendment speech and press rights. . . . Given the array of laws proscribing, e.G., breach of the peace, disorderly conduct, obstructing public ways, failure to comply with a peace officer’s instruction, and loitering, police may justify an arrest as based on probable cause when the arrest was in fact prompted by a retaliatory motive.3 cognitive learning styles if failure to show lack of probable cause defeats an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983, only entirely baseless arrests will be checked. . . . In this case, I would reverse the ninth circuit’s judgment as to trooper weight.3 cognitive learning styles as the court points out, the record is bereft of evidence of retaliation on weight’s part. . . . In any event, I would not use this thin case to state a rule that will leave press members and others exercising first amendment rights with little protection against police suppression of their speech.”

3 cognitive learning styles

Sotomayor: “the majority instead announces a different rule: that a showing of probable cause will defeat a §1983 first amendment retaliatory arrest claim unless the person arrested happens to be able to show that ‘otherwise similarly situated individuals’ whose speech differed were not arrested. . . .3 cognitive learning styles because the correct approach would be simply to apply the well established, carefully calibrated standards that govern first amendment retaliation claims in other contexts, I respectfully dissent.”

3 cognitive learning styles

[T]he justice department charged julian assange, the founder of wikileaks, with multiple counts of violating the 1917 espionage act for his role in publishing tens of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents in 2010.3 cognitive learning styles the indictment supersedes an indictment unsealed in april on narrow grounds of attempting to help an army private surreptitiously break into a government computer to steal classified and sensitive documents.3 cognitive learning styles

The new charges focus on receiving and publishing classified material from a government source. That is something journalists do all the time.3 cognitive learning styles they did it with the pentagon papers and in countless other cases where the public benefited from learning what was going on behind closed doors, even though the sources may have acted illegally.3 cognitive learning styles this is what the first amendment is designed to protect: the ability of publishers to provide the public with the truth.

The use of the espionage act to prosecute assange is an attack on the first amendment.3 cognitive learning styles carrie decell, an attorney with the knight first amendment institute, summed up the threat in a twitter thread on thursday. “the government argues that assange violated the espionage act by soliciting, obtaining, and then publishing classified,” she wrote.3 cognitive learning styles “that’s exactly what good national security and investigative journalists do every day.”

The panel featured nadine strossen, a professor of law at new york law school, and the first woman and youngest person ever to serve as the president of the american civil liberties union; jacob mchangama, the director and founder of justitia, a think tank based in copenhagen that’s focused on human rights; and irina manta, a professor of law at hofstra law school, and an expert on the internet and privacy rights.3 cognitive learning styles

First amendment watch founder and marjorie deane professor of journalism at new york university professor stephen solomon moderated the talk.3 cognitive learning styles the panelists discussed such issues as how governments in the U.S. And abroad address issues related to hate speech; what, if anything, social media platforms should do to police hate speech; and how, despite its dark side, social media has facilitated greater freedom of expression and a marketplace of ideas.3 cognitive learning styles

Twenty years ago, harvey silverglate and alan charles kors opened up the doors to a small nonprofit in philadelphia to answer calls for help from students and professors facing violations of their individual rights.3 cognitive learning styles now, 20 years later, FIRE is the leading authority on campus civil liberties, having helped millions of students defend and enjoy their rights.3 cognitive learning styles with each day, FIRE’s voice grows and its reputation becomes stronger. This is a testament to all the people who have supported our work throughout the years.3 cognitive learning styles and it is those people who we want to celebrate with us in october.

Pinker, a member of FIRE’s advisory council, is currently harvard’s johnstone family professor of psychology.3 cognitive learning styles he is the author of 10 books including, most recently, the new york times-bestselling “enlightenment now: the case for reason, science, humanism, and progress.” (you can hear him discuss the book, among other topics, on our so to speak podcast.) as one of america’s leading thinkers and a longtime advocate for liberal values in higher education, we’re delighted to have him join us this fall.3 cognitive learning styles

Second, we are now accepting general applications for all collegiate faculty and advanced graduate students interested in attending our conference.3 cognitive learning styles as in previous years, 2019 conference attendees will be eligible to receive a travel voucher of up to $750 to assist with the costs of travel and lodging.3 cognitive learning styles there is no deadline for applying, but space is limited; our previous conferences hosted roughly 60-70 faculty members, and we expect a similar turnout this year.3 cognitive learning styles interested participants are strongly encouraged to apply early.

Finally, to ensure faculty are able to submit proposals for consideration, we are extending the deadline to submit proposals from friday, may 31, to monday, june 10.3 cognitive learning styles we will still notify authors of their acceptance by the end of june. Accepted authors will receive an honorarium of $3,000 for their presentation. (co-authorship and presentation of papers at the conference is welcome, with the understanding that the honorarium is split among co-authors.) if you plan to submit, or have already submitted a proposal but would also be interested in attending as a non-presenter, we have you covered!3 cognitive learning styles anyone who submits a proposal will be considered as a general applicant, and there is no need to fill out both forms.

This article is part of first amendment news, an editorially independent publication edited by professor ronald K.3 cognitive learning styles L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about first amendment issues. Opinions expressed are those of the article's author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of professor collins.3 cognitive learning styles