By now, you’ve probably heard about the recent ruling that found that the state of Arizona’s “defamation statute” was unconstitutional.

If you haven’t, it’s worth reading this article, as well as the many more that have followed.

As the article notes, Arizona’s defamation law has been criticized as an overly broad, overly broad interpretation of free speech protections.

In particular, it has led to cases being filed against prominent individuals, businesses, and organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American College of Journalists, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the National Association of Broadcasters.

This was a major blow to the First Amendment, which was designed to protect the rights of individuals and groups to speak and publish without fear of retribution, and has been used as a tool for censorship and harassment.

The ruling was handed down by Judge David Yee, who is now a judge at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yee also ruled that the law is unconstitutionally vague, since it covers a wide range of statements, from false claims of discrimination to offensive remarks about a sexual orientation.

In essence, he found that this law could be used to silence or silence critics, or to punish people for speaking out against the law.

The law was designed in part to help protect public health, according to the ACLU.

Yee’s ruling was also met with strong opposition from state lawmakers, and also from the Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which criticized Yee for not being more transparent about how the law applies.

The Chamber of Industry of Arizona also filed a brief with the court supporting the decision.

In fact, the Chamber has previously argued that the defamation law “may be interpreted as prohibiting, for example, critical speech about the First Baptist Church and the Republican Party, or that critical speech on issues of public policy or law.”

The Chamber of Business also argues that the statute is unconstitutional because it “will create a chilling effect on speech that is otherwise protected speech.”

In a statement, the Arizona Business Council (ABA) called Yee’s decision “a dangerous precedent” and argued that “the Chamber’s brief in support of the ruling should be considered an important warning for all state and local governments.”