News & Analysis
Judge Reinstates CNN, MS NOW, Politico White House Access: First Amendment Analysis
A federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday, Oct. 13, ordering President Donald Trump’s administration to restore White House press passes to reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico as the outlets challenge Trump’s decision to ban them from the building and its grounds. First Amendment Specialist Alex Morey and Katie Bernard, a rapid response writer, analyzes the lawsuit and the First Amendment implications.
Meta’s settlement involves significant changes, but what about First Amendment implications?
Evan Ringel, an assistant professor of media law at Appalachian State University in Boone, N.C. and a member of the Overby Center panel of experts, discusses the First Amendment implications in the landmark multistate settlement. The settlement was to resolve claims that the company had endangered teens by intentionally creating and implementing addictive design features. Ringel writes that the First Amendment places significant limits on direct government regulation of online expression.
Trump has placed historic pressure on press freedom and free speech
Tony Pederson, managing fellow of the Overby Center for Southern Journalism and Politics and professor emeritus in journalism at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, writes about the Trump administration placing historic pressures on major news organizations through libel lawsuits and issuing subpoenas.
In major California social media trial, jurors weigh ‘good business’ vs. ‘treachery’
Charles Mitchell, associate professor in the School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi, discusses a jury trial involving Meta and Google to decide whether the companies are intentionally addicting customers, especially young customers, without their customers’ knowledge or consent.
First Amendment designed to be a shield, but now is being used as a sword
Charles Mitchell of the University of Mississippi and a member of the Overby Center panel of experts discusses the Trump administration’s attempts to use the First Amendment to change higher education.
More Anti-SLAPP laws needed to protect freedom of expression, particularly in the South
Numerous states have passed anti-SLAPP laws that provide mechanisms to have frivolous, malicious lawsuits dismissed before they can create harm. Several southern states, however, do not have anti-SLAPP laws and publishers in those states take on more risk when they publish than their counterparts in states with anti-SLAPP laws. Jared Schroeder of the University of Missouri and a member of the Overby Center panel of experts writes that more anti-SLAPP laws are needed to protect freedom of expression.
Judge withdraws order that a Clarksdale newspaper must take down editorial
A state judge in Mississippi has withdrawn her order that a newspaper in Clarksdale, Miss., must take down an editorial criticizing local officials for not providing notice of a meeting to consider a tax increase.
Mississippi judge orders Clarksdale newspaper to take down editorial
A state judge in Mississippi has ordered a newspaper in Clarksdale, Miss., to remove an editorial.
Supreme Court clarifies one social media challenge, leaves one for later
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Moody v. Netchoice that the government does not have the authority to dictate what social media companies must include on their sites. Professor Charles Mitchell of the Overby Center discusses the Moody v. Netchoice decision and the immunity issue that awaits the Supreme Court in the future because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.