Without context, the issue in Reed might look small. Reed, however, is more than a case about when the statute of limitations period for a DNA-access claim begins. In fact, it operates on three distinct planes of legal discourse.
Read more at Slate
The justices are due to rule by the end of June whether Alphabet Inc's YouTube can be sued over its video recommendations to users. That case tests whether a U.S. law that protects technology platforms from legal responsibility for content posted online by their users also applies when companies use algorithms to target users with recommendations.
Read more at Reuters.com
The law has been active for almost a century. It states that “any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together… is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine of not more than $1,000.” The amendments to the law eliminate the ban on cohabitation.
Read more at MSN.com
The First Amendment does not protect threats—that much is clear. But the Supreme Court has provided little guidance on what qualifies as a threat. That may soon change, when the Court decides Counterman v. Colorado, which will be argued next Wednesday.
Read more at The Atlantic
