freedom of speech

The New York Times' Adam Liptak is predicting a split decision in the case of a public employee fired in retaliation for his testimony in a public corruption case. While a majority of justices seemed ready during oral argument to protect Lane, Liptak reports that a ruling might not help him because he might not be able to show that his First Amendment rights were clearly established at the time he was fired. 

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case of a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to work at a same-sex wedding ceremony, USA Today reports: "The case would have posed an important constitutional question with potentially sweeping implications: whether merchants whose products are inherently expressive must serve customers even when it conflicts with their beliefs." The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that turning down customers on the basis of sexual orientation violates the state's anti-discrimination law.

The U.S. Supreme Court "appeared likely on Wednesday to protect Secret Service agents from being sued for violating the free speech rights of demonstrators. During arguments in Wood v. Moss, justices of all stripes seemed ready to defer to the Secret Service's need to make split-second decisions to protect the president, without being second-guessed in court," Supreme Court Brief's Tony Mauro reported.

PA Sen. Larry Farnese, D-Philadelphia, has sponsored legislation to expand Pennsylvania's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law to cover defamation, invasion of privacy and other causes of action, The Legal Intelligencer's P.J. D'Annunzio reports. Right now, Pennsylvania's anti-SLAPP is limited to citizens communicating to the goverment about the enforcement of environmental law. Joseph T. Moran, who handles First Amendment and media law at Duane Morris' Pittsburgh office, told The Legal: '''A SLAPP suit by definition is not meritorious litigation. If there is a way to encourage public speech and action that dismisses frivolous suits at an early state, it's hard to say that's a bad thing.'"

California has passed a law to criminalize, as a misdemeanor, posting "identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation," The Guardian reports. The ACLU opposed the legislation on free-speech grounds.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on a case that could go even farther than Citizens United in limiting campaign-finance controls in favor of free speech. The case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this term "involves a law that puts a ceiling of $123,200 on individuals who donate to multiple federal candidates, parties and political action committees during a two-year election cycle," the Chronicle reports. Advocates of overturning the limit argue it violates free-speech rights, but opponents argue such rules better ensure fair elections by controlling the amount of money the affluent can pump into campaigns.