Law360: Calif. AI Election Law Blocked As ‘Blunt Tool’ Stifling Speech
Law360 wrote about our lawsuit on behalf of “Mr Reagan,” a YouTuber who creates political satire videos.
Courthouse News Service: Federal judge stops implementation of California misinformation law
Courthouse News Service wrote about our victory for free speech on behalf of YouTube and X creator, "Mr Reagan."
Fox News: Federal judge blocks California law banning election deepfakes
Fox News covered our lawsuit on behalf of YouTube and X creator, "Mr Reagan."
Volokh Conspiracy: Judge Blocks California Law Restricting “Materially Deceptive” Election-Related Deepfakes
Eugene Volokh covered our victory in blocking California’s law on election-related deepfakes.
RedState: California’s Thugs in Government Get Sued for Their Blatant Violation of the First Amendment
RedState wrote about HLLI's free speech lawsuit for YouTube and X creator, "Mr Reagan."
Fox News: Newsom’s deepfake election laws are already being challenged in federal court
Fox News wrote about our lawsuit on behalf of “Mr Reagan,” a YouTuber who creates political satire videos.
Legal Insurrection: California’s Crackdown On AI-Generated Political Parody Is Unconstitutional, Lawsuit Says
Legal Insurrection wrote about HLLI's lawsuit for YouTube and X creator, "Mr Reagan" in defense of parody, satire, and free speech.
Law360: Conservative Pundit Seeks To Block Calif. AI Election Laws
Law360 wrote about HLLI's free speech lawsuit for YouTube and X creator, "Mr Reagan."
The Volokh Conspiracy: Briefs Supporting Strong First Amendment Protection for K-12 Students’ Outside-School Speech
The Volokh Conspiracy wrote about HLLI's brief in Leroy v. Livingston Manor School District defending student free speech.
The American Spectator: Supreme Court Should Reexamine New York Times v. Sullivan
HLLI's president, Anna St. John wrote an opinion article in the American Spectator arguing that the ‘Sullivan’ precedent, has no basis in the history of the First Amendment, and recent events illustrate why the Court should heed calls to reexamine its misguided precedent.
