The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
Where are the fact-checkers and misinformation cops?
Medical professionals are often unaware of the relevant research on the relative risks of tobacco products, and that can matter for public health.
From limits on liability protections for websites to attempts to regulate the internet like a public utility, these proposals will erode Americans' right to express themselves.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
Where are the misinformation czars and the mainstream media fact-checkers now?
The doctor's claims that he was open to either explanation is flatly contradicted by his literal words.
Plus: State officials attempt to ban Donald Trump from 2024 election ballots.
Academic malfeasance by Harvard's president deserves media coverage and condemnation, not excuses.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.
Your support makes some of the "riskiest" journalism on the internet possible.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill last month that would bar federal agencies from forcing employees to respect preferred names or pronouns.
An extensive new study finds that the answer is "no." Belief in conspiracy theories is about equally common on different sides of the political spectrum.
The notion that COVID-19 came from a lab was once touted as misinformation. But now the FBI, the Energy Department, and others agree with Paul.
Democrats and Republicans are united in thinking their political agendas trump the First Amendment.
Aside from narrowly defined exceptions, false speech is protected by the First Amendment.
The justices agreed to consider whether the Biden administration's efforts to suppress online "misinformation" were unconstitutional.
Perhaps the Walter Cronkite Awards ought to have slightly higher standards?
Several federal judges had expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of penalizing physicians for departing from a government-defined "consensus."
Economist Tyler Cowen elaborates on some of the reasons why. The root of the problem is that voters have poor incentives to become well-informed and evaluate information objectively.
The U.S.-Bahraini security pact is the first step towards a future U.S.-Saudi “mega-deal.” Critics say it violates the U.S. Constitution and aids torturers.
Yoel Roth worries about government meddling in content moderation, except when Democrats target "misinformation."
The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.
The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."
Plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden allege that federal pressure to remove and suppress COVID-19 material on Facebook and Twitter violates the First Amendment.
A new study of COVID-19 narratives makes the very mistake it purports to correct.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1:30 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion with Jay Bhattacharya and John Vecchione about their legal case against the Biden administration.
Humanity has always adjusted to the reliability of new information sources.
A new documentary film argues that the second-largest website on the planet is flooded with misinformation. Is that right?
"Disinformation" researchers alarmed by the injunction against government meddling with social media content admire legal regimes that allow broad speech restrictions.
The response to the decision illustrates the alarming erosion of bipartisan support for the First Amendment.
Confirmation of Wuhan scientists as "patients zero" makes the lab leak theory look likely—and the misinformation police look like fools.
"We find that while removing this content does curb some misinformation, it could also have the unintended effect of curtailing political speech."
Why the businessman launched a long shot campaign for the presidency.
Not only is that claim factually incorrect, but it's also wrong to be so pessimistic about young people's economic future.
Join Reason on YouTube Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion of Jacob Siegel's broadside against the "counter-disinformation complex" in Tablet magazine.
I have more reason than most to cheer his departure from Fox News. But it's unlikely to significantly diminish the problem of political misinformation, which is driven by demand more than supply.
Officials who often get it wrong can’t be trusted to reliably decree what’s true.
The COVID-19 lab leak theory was labeled "misinformation." Now it's the most plausible explanation.
The legal challenge to censorship by proxy highlights covert government manipulation of online speech.
The latest Twitter Files shows a partnership between Stanford University researchers and government-funded organizations encouraged social media companies to police true information.
Time and time again, so-called disinformation watchdogs fail their own tests—the lab leak is just the latest example.
The push to label the lab leak thesis a racist conspiracy theory now looks even more foolish.