Your fact-checks will appear here
The First Amendment was referenced in the context of the conviction, with one judge dissenting on First Amendment grounds for purely textual and non-real depictions.
Twenty‑three states and the District of Columbia maintain statutes that limit wearing masks in public, but those laws vary sharply in scope: some are narrow, criminalizing masking conducted with inten...
Yes—reporting shows multiple criminal arrests and federal indictments tied to doxxing or related harassment of personnel, but the record is mixed: some high-profile prosecutions have moved forward whi...
A small number of democratic legal systems have judicially recognized pornography as a form of protected expression under constitutional or fundamental‑rights law, but those protections are routinely ...
in public or online is usually constitutionally protected speech, but it can trigger criminal charges, civil liability, or institutional discipline when paired with threats, harassment, or other unlaw...
The are a suite of crimes in Title 18 that prohibit acts that knowingly and intentionally impede federal investigative, prosecutorial or governmental processes — including tampering with witnesses, de...
v. settlement — a $787.5 million agreement that ended the defamation case just before trial — imposed a heavy financial cost and removed the prospect of public, on-the-record depositions that would ha...
sit at the intersection of robust for speech and distinct legal protections for ; courts routinely draw a line between lawful expressive activity (often permitted on public sidewalks) and disruptive o...
in is robustly protected by the but not absolute: courts allow “time, place, and manner” restrictions and prohibit speech that incites imminent lawless action or involves violence or property destruct...
State legislatures have moved quickly to criminalize or computer-edited , with dozens of states amending statutes to cover digital, computer-generated, or AI-created visual depictions ; but state cour...
Text-only sexual writing that depicts minors is treated far more permissively under U.S. law and constitutional doctrine than visual depictions: federal statutes and precedent focus criminal liability...
Anti‑SLAPP laws are statutory tools designed to stop lawsuits meant primarily to chill public participation by allowing an expedited early dismissal when the suit targets protected speech on matters o...
The Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 has generated sustained controversy: critics contend it weakens a long-standing “firewall” against government-produced information targeting domestic audience...
Laws governing unintentional exposure to child sexual abuse material (CSAM) differ significantly across federal and state lines: many jurisdictions historically treated possession as a strict liabilit...
Hiring people to attend protests or demonstrations is a legally gray but generally lawful practice in the United States: the First Amendment protects expressive activity and courts treat peaceful paid...
The Constitution’s protects the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government, which courts and civil‑liberties groups treat as a broad protection for protesting in public spaces . That prot...
treats racial epithets like “nigger” as potential unlawful harassment when they contribute to a hostile work environment, and the explicitly lists racial slurs as harassment examples . Courts and agen...
was arrested by federal agents in in connection with his presence at and coverage of an anti‑ICE protest that disrupted a service at in , ; says he is charged with conspiracy to deprive rights and vio...
’s recent and long-running pattern of filing high-profile defamation and related civil suits against journalists, news organizations and critics — often seeking large damages and sometimes brought in ...
anchored the conspiracy counts in the indictment on a mosaic of evidentiary threads: a chronology of false public statements and social-media activity from , internal communications and contacts with ...
Federal law and the states do not have a general criminal ban on “” online; instead, U.S. courts and statutes criminalize narrow categories of harmful speech — true threats, incitement to imminent law...