Sarah E. Thomas Pagels

Desire to “revoke” Section 230 would destroy statutory immunity for all “interactive computer services.” It’s gross overkill.

Section 230 takes a lot of heat – and for reasons that are almost always wrong. Here are a few of the common mistakes that you hear about Section 230.

As a few thousand people and I predicted, last Saturday morning a federal district court rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to block publication and distribution of John Bolton’s new memoir.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth will hear arguments about whether the federal government can prevent John Bolton from publishing the book he wrote about his service as President Trump’s National Security Adviser.

Mark Leitner dissects President Trump’s abuses of the legal system by filing meritless defamation suits.

In his forthcoming article, “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy,” Milwaukee’s own U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman pens a scathing and personal rebuke against the conservative majority of the United States Supreme Court, and in particular, Chief Justice John Roberts.

Judge Jill Karofsky, a circuit court judge in an election race for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, filed a lawsuit claiming that several television ads attacking her record as a district attorney and a judge were defamatory and violated a Wisconsin criminal statute prohibiting knowingly false statements about a candidate intended to influence voting.

The heart of First Amendment protection is near-absolute immunity for criticism of government, its officials, and candidates for office.

All of the claims that the President asserts start with a huge obstacle in the path to victory: he is complaining about statements made in the context of a political campaign.