The East Oregonian covers the decision by some counties in Oregon to restrict mail sent to inmates to postcards only.  The counties say that move is justified because it will spare employees the burden of having to search through inmate mail to ensure it does not contain contraband.  There is an exception for legal and job-related mail. The ACLU criticized the policy as cutting inmates off from their families because it will no longer be possible for them to exchange meaningful correspondence.

The LA Times editorialized on the federal reporter shield bill.  A version passed the House and a bill has been introduced in the Senate.  The paper argues that there ought to be a strong reporter shield, and criticizes the current version for taking too narrow a view of who counts as a journalist.

The Denver Post reports that Englewood, Colorado will not appeal a court ruling allowing an individual to keep a mural painted on the outside of his business.  The mural depicts a scene from Alice in Wonderland in which a caterpillar smokes shisha.  The city claimed the  mural violated its sign code.  The Court ruled that the city violated the constitutional right to free expression when it ordered the mural removed.

Arkansas Online reports that, after intervention by the ACLU, a judge has ordered the state to allow the Arkansas Society of Freethinkers to erect their disply at the state Capitol.

The New York Times editorial page weighs in on the free speech controversy involving Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor at Guantanamo.  Davis was let go from his position at the Congressional Research Service because he wrote about the Guantanamo detainees.  The ACLU now represents Davis, maintains he was let go in unlawful retaliation for his speech, and has threatened to sue if he is not reinstated.  The Times takes the position that Davis ought to be reinstated.

The Charlottesville Daily Progress reports on a speech controversy regarding the right to protest in front of the office of a member of Congress.  According to the article, protesters used to protest near U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s office.  When a neighboring business owner complained that the protesters were hurting her business, the police required them to move to a nearby sidewalk. John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute has asked the Representative to move his office.  The Representative has offered to make a variety of other accommodations.  Given that Rep. Perriello was not the person who required the protesters to move, it does not seem that there is any claim that he violated the First Amendment.

The First Amendment Center reports on a district court judge’s dismissal of a defamation lawsuit against the Dixie Chicks.  The court held that there was insufficient evidence of actual malice on the part of the Dixie Chicks for the lawsuit to proceed.  The article also discusses some other pending defamation cases.

Inside Higher Education discusses a number of recent cases in which courts have been figuring out how to apply the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos to faculty speech.  In Garcetti, the Court held if an employee’s speech is part of his or her official duties, there is no First Amendment claim if he or she is punished for that speech.  There has been some question about how to apply this rule to faculty speech, because a broad reading might encompass all of a faculty member’s academic work.

Adam Thierer of Tech Liberation Front has an interesting if snarky blog post on an FCC workshop on net neutrality.  Let’s just say he was unimpressed.

The New York Times reports that two groups have sued the City of Pittsburgh for its treatment of them when they showed up to demonstrate at the G-20 meeting in September.  The groups are Seeds of Peace Collective and Three Rivers Climate Convergence.  The suit alleges the city intentionally interfered with the groups’ ability to exercise their First Amendment right to protest.  The groups are represented by the ACLU of Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Business Times also covers the story.

The Washington Post reports that the Congressional Research Service has declined to reinstate an assistant director it recently terminated.  According to the article, the assistant director used to be the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo, and was terminated after writing critically about the Obama adminstration’s handling of detention issues.  He alleges he was terminated in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech.

Jurist reports that the Ninth Circuit has denied same-sex marriage supporters access to the internal campaign emails of those working for passage of California’s proposition 8.  The Court held that disclosure of these emails in discovery in the ongong lawsuit challenging the proposition would impermissibly chill the First Amendment-protected freedom of association.  Jurist reports that the  Ninth Circuit established the rule that “the party seeking discovery must demonstrate a need for the information sufficiently compelling to oughtweigh the impact on” associational rights.

The Orange County Register offers coverage that draws comparisons between the recent round of protests by students at the University of California campuses with the Free Speech Movement protests of 1964.

The Wall Street Journal publishes a letter by First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams. Abrams criticizes the U.S. for supporting a U.N. resolution that urges states to take action to combat negative religious stereotyping.

The New York Times runs an op ed suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt “[a]n external international panel comprising the world’s most eminent philosophers, legal scholars, historians and others” to help it adjudicate claims that certain speech should be removed from the online encyclopedia.  The article uses as an example a recent case in which Wikipedia published the names of two Germans who were convicted of murdering an actor in Germany and, having served their sentences, were set free.  Under German law, their names should have been kept secret.  The law in the U.S., where Wikipedia is based, does not allow the state to order the names to be concealed.  The article suggests that cases such as this one are difficult in that they require free speech to be reconciled against other values and further suggests that Wikipedia needs to set up a more rigorous institutional structure to deal with them.

The Panama City News-Herald editorializes  in support of its motion to keep the courtroom open in a civil suit against Joe Francis, who founded Girls Gone Wild.  Francis is being sued by women who were under 18 when they were filmed for the video series.  The women wanted the courtroom to be closed when they testified.  The News Herald opposes closing the courtroom, arguing that it has a First Amendment right to attend and report on the testimony.

The Yankton Press & Dakotan reports that the Nebraska Supreme Court will hear a case addressing whether an individual can be fined for sending emails containing profanity, and a threat of physical violence, to a candidate for public office.  The paper reports that the Nebraska Supreme Court was prompted to hear the case by a petition from Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor.  He argues the emails are protected by the First Amendment and cannot lead to punishment by government.

Game Set Watch interviews Doug Lowenstein, former president of the Entertainment Software Association. In the interview, Lowenstein emphasizes the importance of the video game industry continuing to protect the First Amendment rights of creators of video games.

An American Muslim Journal blogs on a case in which public school students and their parents, represented by the ACLU of Florida, are suing their school for forbidding them from wearing shirts that said “Islam is of the devil.”  It provides a detailed factual background and also delves into the First Amendment issues at stake.  The blog’s view is that the school acted correctly.

Abcnews.com reports on the popularity of the slogan “Pray for Obama:  Psalm 109:8.”  The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”  A subsequent verse reads, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”  Both the ACLU and Anti-Defamation league sources quoted in the article say that this is protected speech.

The Denver WestWord blogs on the 10th Circuit argument in Weise v. Jenkins.  Diclosure:  I am counsel in this case.  In 2005, the Bush Administration ejected two individuals from one of the President’s taxpayer-funded, open-to-the-public speaking engagements because they arrived in a car with the bumper sticker “no more blood for oil.”  The individuals sued, arguing that ejecting them because of their viewpoint violated the First Amendment.  The district court rejected that argument and the individuals appealed.  The 10th Circuit must decide whether this was a constitutional violation and, if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.  The Denver WestWord provides commentary on the hearing.  The Denver Post and AP also ran stories.

The Dallas Morning News runs a story on student speech online.  The story was sparked by an incident in which middle schoolers created a Facebook page called “I hate Mrs. X” (where X is the name of a teacher) and stated “Join now and maybe we can all kill her together.”  the students were suspended. The article explores schools’ struggles to decide what is harmless if juvenile banter and what is genuinely threatening or punishable.  It also explores the extent to which schools have the authority to punish out-of-school speech.

SiliconValley.com reports on the revised Google Books settlement, filed in court last Friday.  The article discusses the terms of the new settlement agreement.

The Boulder Weekly reports on the saga of a librarian who took it upon herself to remove a book she considered inappropriate from circulation.  The book at issue is The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume IV: The Black Dossier.  According to the Bolder Weekly, the librarian first challenged the inclusion of the book in the library’s collection under its acceptable use policy and, when that failed, proceeded to check it out repeatedly so that no one else could obtain it.  The librarian and a coworker who collaborated with her have both been let go.

The State Bar of Wisconsin reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have imposed new rules clarifying that judges do not need to recuse themselves from the cases of litigants who donated to their campaigns.  In adopting this new rule, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the proposals of the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Trade Group, and rejected a petition by the Leage of Women Voters that would have required recusal when a candidate received $1000 or more from a litigant in the preceding two years.  According to the article, at least one justice and some of the parties against recusal requirements cited the First Amendment and the chilling effect of such restrictions on political speech as the reason not to impose them.

Wired.com covers yesterday’s decision by a district court judge to allow a lawsuit challenging the patent on a gene to go forward. The lawsuit advances a First Amendment claim, among others. The judge will hear argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in December.

The New York Times publishes an editorial supporting the federal reporter shield law.  The paper argues that although the  shield law does not provide expansive enough protections for journalists in certain circumstances, the proposed legislation is an improvement on the current situation.