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."
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
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.
Plus: A listener asks about Republicans and Democrats monopolizing political power in the United States.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
"It's a disturbing gift of unprecedented authority to President Biden and the Surveillance State," said Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.).
Instead of freeing Americans from censorship, the TikTok bill would tighten the U.S. government's control over social media.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
Censorship of 2,872 Pennsylvania license plates raises free speech questions.
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.
These aren't outright bans. But they still can chill free speech and academic freedom.
"None of these laws prevent kids from viewing anything. They just prevent kids from posting," argues Shoshana Weissmann.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
The proposal seems to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling against laws that criminalize mere possession of obscene material.
In an amicus brief filed in Murthy v. Missouri, they ignore basic tenets of First Amendment law in order to quash online speech they don't like.
How identity politics and institutional cowardice have undermined the free speech on which our society relies.
Police have set bounties on 13 activists, some living in the U.S.
New anti-drag laws were deemed unconstitutional in every state where they were challenged this year.
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
The Bluest Eyes and 13 Reasons Why top the list of controversial books in Florida.
The trial of the first of 61 defendants starts today, but the judge has seemingly forbidden any of the defendants or their attorneys from discussing the case.
Lots of Americans have an intolerance to FODMAPs—the sugars prevalent in garlic, onion, and many other foods.
A D.C. Circuit judge says the government’s defense of the order gives short shrift to "the First Amendment’s vigorous protection of political speech."
When people from historically privileged groups are facing censorship, that doesn't mean people in historically marginalized groups are actually being empowered.
The once-subversive show now traffics in the clichés it used to mock so effectively.
"If we can't trust ourselves as a culture to accommodate ideas we don't like," the novelist said at the Library of Congress, "then our ideas lose their value as well, because they become authoritarian."
"Being a true free speech champion does require that you defend speech that even you disagree with," says libertarian Rikki Schlott.
The Supreme Court considers whether and when banishing irksome constituents violates the First Amendment.
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.
A federal judge barred the former president from "publicly targeting" witnesses, prosecutors, or court personnel.
Sylvia Gonzalez, an anti-establishment politician, spent a day in jail for allegedly concealing a petition that she organized.
Several federal judges had expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of penalizing physicians for departing from a government-defined "consensus."
"Plaintiff cannot likely show that her rejection of Dr Greeson's alleged conduct was the basis for her asserted adverse educational action (i.e., failure of the Qualifying Exam)—Plaintiff appears to have failed the Qualifying Exam every which way."
The issue was rejected because it "jeopardizes the good order and security of the institution."
The former OnlyFans star and outspoken libertarian defender of sex workers considers the acceleration of government crackdowns on online porn, the sexual revolution, and sex work.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook at 1 p.m. Eastern this Thursday for a discussion with Aella about the escalating government crackdown on online porn, the sexual revolution, and sex work.
If Facebook et al. are pushing a "radical leftist narrative," why don’t they have a constitutional right to do that?
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel has initiated a new rulemaking that would enact what are largely the same net neutrality rules tried back in 2016.
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."