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."
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
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.
The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.
Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.
The Supreme Court seems inclined to recognize that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
Many apps collect data that is then accessed by outside entities. Should you care?
"None of these laws prevent kids from viewing anything. They just prevent kids from posting," argues Shoshana Weissmann.
Throughout Republican-run Western states, lawmakers are passing legislation that treats adults as if they are children.
Plus: A listener asks if it should become the norm for all news outlets to require journalists to disclose their voting records.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
Republicans and Democrats are using emotional manipulation to push an agenda of censorship.
Free societies generally leave these matters to individuals and families.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.
The Supreme Court considers whether and when banishing irksome constituents violates the First Amendment.
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new.
Democrats and Republicans are united in thinking their political agendas trump the First Amendment.
The justices agreed to consider whether the Biden administration's efforts to suppress online "misinformation" were unconstitutional.
Even content creators outside of New York would feel its effects.
The worst of the antitrust alarmism keeps proving untrue, as tech companies believed by some to be monopolies instead lose market share.
We should all be skeptical that the same government that can't balance a budget can revamp the dominant form of modern communications and boost young people's self-esteem.
If Facebook et al. are pushing a "radical leftist narrative," why don’t they have a constitutional right to do that?
The worst of the antitrust alarmism keeps proving untrue, as tech companies believed by some to be monopolies instead lose market share.
The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.
The Colorado governor finds common ground with many libertarians. But does he really stand for more freedom?
People should be free to choose how cautious to be. Mask mandates, lockdowns, and closing schools won't stop the virus.
A federal judge compared Waylon Bailey’s Facebook jest to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre."
The appeals court ruled that a Facebook post alluding to World War Z was clearly protected by the First Amendment.
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.
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.
New research on Facebook before the 2020 election finds scant evidence to suggest algorithms are shifting our political views.
"Can someone quickly remind me why we were removing—rather than demoting/labeling—claims that Covid is man made," asked Meta's president for global affairs.
Plus: court strikes down Arizona law against filming cops, GOP candidates want to cut Social Security for young people, and more...
Plus: Groups ask Supreme Court to say public officials can't block people, latest jobs report shows openings down, and more...
Plus: Teaching A.I. about the Fourth of July, and more...
Plus: Maine prostitution measure becomes law, "significant misconduct" in jail where Epstein hung himself, Mike Pence defends free markets, and more...
Plus: RIP Daniel Ellsberg, the Pioneers of Capitalism, and more...
Plus: Court using anti-pornography software to track a criminal defendant, $25 million verdict against Starbucks over fired employee, and more...
Plus: Debt ceiling deal passes House, Congress wants to childproof the internet, lactation consultant licensing law is unconstitutional, and more...
The record penalty seems to be based less on the Facebook parent company's lax data practices than the U.S. intelligence community's data-collection programs.
Media literacy education invites a slew of nonprofit organizations and consultancies into the public school system, many of whom may have their own political agendas.
Plus: Missouri attempts to ban gender transition treatments for adults, another bad social media bill hits Congress, and more...
Online media companies got exactly what they said they wanted.
The lawsuit blames the companies for stoking "anxiety, depression, thoughts of self-harm, and suicidal ideation."