Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Facebook

Libertarian Banned from Facebook for Tide Pod Joke That Mocked Liberals

Chew on that.

Robby Soave | 1.24.2018 3:55 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Large image on homepages | JRos / Dreamstime
(JRos / Dreamstime)
Tide pod
Screenshot via The Liberty Review

Facebook doesn't seem to think Tide Pods are a joking matter.

Tom Champlin, who owns the libertarian news aggregator The Liberty Review and runs its associated Facebook page, was slapped with a 30-day Facebook ban for posting a Tide Pod meme. His post showed a screenshot of a teen who was stupid enough to bite into a Tide Pod; the caption said, "This is why I can't pay for your health insurance."

Facebook sent Champlin a message telling him that his post had violated the site's community standards and he would be temporarily locked out of his profile as a punishment.

"I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

Facebook usually takes this step after another user reports content that violates the company's community standards. But it's not clear what Facebook policy was undermined by the meme, which is clearly using the Tide Pod Moment to make a political joke. Facebook prohibits "content that promotes or encourages suicide or any other type of self-injury, including self-mutilation and eating disorders," but the post wasn't actually advocating self-harm of any sort.

As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants. But the company claims to "allow humor, satire, [and] social commentary," and Champlin's post clearly fits the bill.

Maybe Facebook is just being extra-super-duper cautious about Tide-Pod-related content, given all the recent attention being paid to the alleged craze. As with so many other internet memes, there's no logical origin story here. A bunch of social-media-using teens apparently decided that challenging each other to "drink bleach" was so 2017; in 2018, we should eat Tide Pods instead. (Some people think a two-year-old Onion article about a toddler who desperately wants to swallow a Tide Pod may have inspired the meme.)

It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide Pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result. But those were accidents involving little kids who didn't know better. Aside from a handful of yo-yos on YouTube, it simply isn't the case that a host of teenagers are deliberately eating Tide Pods. It's a joke, akin to the faux public mourning of Harambe the gorilla.

No one should be freaked out about Tide Pod jokes. That includes you, Facebook.

Clarification: Champlin's primary Facebook profile page was suspended; he is currently using alternate accounts to circumvent the ban.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Selling Blood Plasma Is Not Unethical

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

Facebook
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (102)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. $park? leftist poser   7 years ago

    Aside from a handful of yo-yos on YouTube, it simply isn't the case that a host of teenagers are deliberately eating Tide pods.

    I read somewhere recently (maybe CNN) that YouTube is going to be pulling all the videos. I wouldn't be surprised if FaceBook is trying to lump in with the same "safety" concern.

    1. gavril   7 years ago

      Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day... Get regular payment on a weekly basis... All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time...
      Read more here..... http://www.startonlinejob.com

  2. Mickey Rat   7 years ago

    So the thought is, the joke says chomping down on a Tide is a dangerous, foolish act, therefore it is promoting suicide. That truly is a stunning logical conclusion, if so.

    1. esteve7   7 years ago

      To a leftist anything conservative or libertarian can be twisted into their requirements for censorship somehow.

      And don't give me this crap about facebook being a private company, they bill themselves as neutral, then apply everything 1 way, just like journos.

      1. Finrod   7 years ago

        Yep. Facebook and Twitter are going to find themselves regulated by the government eventually and it'll be their own damn fault for being fucking idiots.

  3. IceTrey   7 years ago

    If thousands have eaten pods and only 1 has died how can they be described as highly poisonous? I'd call that barely poisonous.

    1. EscherEnigma   7 years ago

      Off the top of my head, how "poisonous" something is, is probably based on the "no treatment" outcomes. So the fact that most of those kids that ingested laundry soap got sent to the ER where they were stomach pumped and had charcoal shoved down the throats doesn't mean it's not poisonous, just that we know how to handle such things.

      That said, it's probably just media rhetoric rather then an official scale. Whatever the real "scale" is probably differentiates between "will probably make you very sick, but wont' kill you" and "it's gonna kill you dead bitch".

      1. Hillary Clinton   7 years ago

        The ld/50 is known.

        1. EscherEnigma   7 years ago

          When was the last time you saw an article that wasn't in a scientific journal that referred to things like LD/50?

          1. Careless   7 years ago

            I read a lot of Wikipedia.

        2. Griffin3   7 years ago

          According to the MSDS and the pod mass of 25g, and you know, math:
          The anionic surfactants which make up ~30% of the tide pod are the dangerous ingredient, so for a 50kg (110#) teenage moron, the LD50 would be: 7 tide pods. Maybe 5 pods if you got an especially strong batch (range 15-40% surfactant, not impressed with their ISO9000 processes, there).

          So you'd have to not only be stupid, but multiple-times stupid, in order to get 50% dead.

          1. VinniUSMC   7 years ago

            How dead is 50% dead? Are we talking Wesley from Princess Bride "he's only mostly dead" and needs to swallow a giant chocolate covered rock?

            1. ThomasD   7 years ago

              Shorthand lingo.

              Of a group of teenage morons (of approximately 50 kg each) who each ate 5-7 tide pods about 50% would not survive the adventure.

              That's why it's an LD50

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

        No one in Amerikkka has adequate healthcare, our outcomes are shit, and Cuba beats us at everything. So it sounds like swallowing one must have no effect.

        1. DarrenM   7 years ago

          And people are dying in the streets making it really annoying having to step over the corpses. Why can't America be like that Utopian paradise, Venezuela?

        2. I am the 0.000000013%   7 years ago

          That which does not kill us makes us stronger. Having crap health care makes us the most mighty of the planet earth's inhabitants.

          1. Longtobefree   7 years ago

            I believe the actual quote is "That which does not kill me merely postpones the inevitable".
            Or was that the Despair demotivator?

        3. epsilon given   7 years ago

          Seriously! This is *exactly* why Americans are fleeing to Cuba by the hundreds of thousands per year, braving exposure to the elements, on pretty much anything that kindof floats, in shark-infested waters!

    2. ATXChappy   7 years ago

      Dang it. I submitted the same thing. But, you got yours in first.

    3. mad.casual   7 years ago

      I'd call that barely poisonous.

      Assuming the women didn't affirmatively consent to being poisoned, I don't see why highly venomous isn't appropriate.

      1. mad.casual   7 years ago

        Aaand... now I kinda want a 'No et Tid Pod' flag.

      2. mpercy   7 years ago

        As a kid I learned that "If you bite something and get sick or die, it was poisonous. If something bites you and you get sick or die, it was venomous."

  4. Citizen X - #6   7 years ago

    People under the age of 60 still use Facebook?

    1. Hillary Clinton   7 years ago

      Crossfitters do.

    2. $park? leftist poser   7 years ago

      MySpace will make a comeback any day now, then you'll have all your friends back.

      1. Mongo   7 years ago

        I'm serious saying this but MySpace was vastly superior to FB.

    3. MP   7 years ago

      GET OFF MY LAWN!

  5. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

    What's Facebook?

  6. Rhywun   7 years ago

    "I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

    Wait... he's complaining about this?

  7. loveconstitution1789   7 years ago

    Tom Chaplin should be given an award for promoting Darwinism.

  8. ATXChappy   7 years ago

    "It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result."

    Maybe I'm a bit slow. But, how can you categorize something as 'highly poisonous' when 'only a handful of them die as a result" of eating them. Let's not blow the toxicity of Tide Pods out of proportion. That's how we end up with these ridiculous meme's to begin with.

    1. SQRLSY One   7 years ago

      ATXChappy, I do NOT think you understand the profound DANGERS we all face here!

      The Tide Pod People are taking OEVR, and we do NOT know WHO they are! Your neighbor might be a Tide Pod Person!!! Your kid's Sunday School teacher might be a Tide Pod Person!!! Be YE HEREBY WARNED!!!

      1. Agammamon   7 years ago

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEStsLJZhzo

    2. JeremyR   7 years ago

      Because they get very expensive medical care?

      You know, like the whole point of the dudes picture that this article is about?

  9. Darth Soros   7 years ago

    Not that I'm supporting Facebook in this, but . . . is being blocked from Facebook that crippling? I belonged to it at one point and found it mainly one big timesuck. I pretty much stopped using it, until a friend of mine, vacationing in Europe, went Missing in Action. I don't have Liam Neeson's "set of particular skills," but I did go on Facebook to contact my friend's Facebook friends and see if they'd had any word from or about her. (Turned out she had gotten sick and was in a hospital in Germany.) My sudden upsurge in Facebook use after about a year of letting it lie fallow triggered off an alarm at Facebook HQ and, thinking my account might have been hacked by terrorists, they shut my account down altogether. I tried to get them to re-activate it but the process started to get so complicated and laborious I eventually decided, "Screw it."

    My life has been fine without Facebook.

    1. Arcxjo   7 years ago

      Considering how many other sites use Facebook login, it can be quite devastating. Hell, there are companies where you can't apply for a job if you don't have a Faceban login.

      1. ThomasD   7 years ago

        While I do not have a problem with companies who choose to do business that way, I do find it surprising that that sort of behavior has not attracted scrutiny under existing workplace discrimination law.

      2. Longtobefree   7 years ago

        You do not want to work at any of those companies. They have other bad policies as well.

    2. Seamus   7 years ago

      The Hit and Run combox is an even bigger timesuck.

  10. Darth Soros   7 years ago

    Not that I'm supporting Facebook in this, but . . . is being blocked from Facebook that crippling? I belonged to it at one point and found it mainly one big timesuck. I pretty much stopped using it, until a friend of mine, vacationing in Europe, went Missing in Action. I don't have Liam Neeson's "set of particular skills," but I did go on Facebook to contact my friend's Facebook friends and see if they'd had any word from or about her. (Turned out she had gotten sick and was in a hospital in Germany.) My sudden upsurge in Facebook use after about a year of letting it lie fallow triggered off an alarm at Facebook HQ and, thinking my account might have been hacked by terrorists, they shut my account down altogether. I tried to get them to re-activate it but the process started to get so complicated and laborious I eventually decided, "Screw it."

    My life has been fine without Facebook.

  11. Domestic Dissident   7 years ago

    Late P.M. Links are a crime worse than Watergate.

    1. Citizen X - #6   7 years ago

      You got some really dumb shit that you're itching to post, huh?

      1. Domestic Dissident   7 years ago

        Do the world a favor and eat a pod of liquid detergent.

        1. Citizen X - #6   7 years ago

          Don't get mad just because i was right.

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

        What's my dumb shit, chopped liver?

        1. SQRLSY One   7 years ago

          ANGRILY: I am TIRED of yer dumb shit!!!

          Slyly: Now can I have some of yer piss?!?!?

  12. Rufus The Monocled   7 years ago

    Curious, does Facebook ban left-wingers who do similar things? Serious question.

    "As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants."

    They're still fucken assholes though.

    1. SQRLSY One   7 years ago

      Yeah man... +1... With emphasis one the third line...

    2. Fred Z   7 years ago

      Private business? Sort of like a Christian bakery?

      My point is that the "private business can do what its contract allows" claim is incorrect. Contract must bow to law, as the hapless baker discovered. A contract purporting to allow one party to do illegal things is an illegal contract and the offending parts are void.

      Were conservatives not cheap cowards we'd be suing Facebook every time they pulled a stunt like this. Let the bastards pay gigantic legal fees on 400 or 500 lawsuits and we'll see if process punishment doesn't work on them too.

  13. Incomprehensible Bitching   7 years ago

    Facebook is a private company, and can do whatever it wants.

    If you don't support universal healthcare for all, then you're killing babies, and that's bad, so you get banned.

    Why don't you get that?

    1. Brandybuck   7 years ago

      Facebook can indeed ban anyone they want, but that doesn't mean they aren't engaged in a liberal groupthink mentality that needs to be called out for the bullshit it is.

      Likewise, Reason can post whatever they want, including mocking people who aren't in direct violation of the sacred N.A.P.

    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

      Facbook has its own Net Neutrality thing going.

    3. Longtobefree   7 years ago

      If you support abortion, you are killing babies. And that's the truth.

  14. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

    "I can't use it for anything," Champlin says. "I can't friend, message, post, or operate pages."

    I dunno, seems kind of liberating to me.

    1. Arcxjo   7 years ago

      ... I can't get the code on my phone that allows me to authenticate logging in to my bank to pay my mortgage.

      Because nothing is so liberating as homelessness.

      1. Agammamon   7 years ago

        Because not being able to shitpost on Facebook or not stay up to date on a half dozen people posting stupid shit is the same as not being able to pay a bill online - while still perfectly capable of mailing a money order in or, you know, going to the fucking bank to get the problem sorted?

  15. Mongo   7 years ago

    I've eaten pad thai and thought it was pretty good.

    1. Brandybuck   7 years ago

      I've eaten what I thought was a Brillo Pad, but it turned out she was just French...

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

        It's like being confronted by the Unabomber when she pulls her pants down.

  16. Brian   7 years ago

    And his anti-Medicare-for-All meme got more publicity then it ever would have on his facebook page.

    Well played, Tom Champlin.

    1. Brandybuck   7 years ago

      If only Facebook were not blocked here at work, I would be immediately reposting that image.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

        Make friends with your network administrator.

      2. Brian   7 years ago

        Give us your username/password; we'll post it for you.

  17. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

    Facebook prohibits "content that promotes or encourages suicide or any other type of self-injury, including self-mutilation and eating disorders," but the post wasn't actually advocating self-harm of any sort.

    It could have been interpreted as such, either out of maliciousness or stupidity.

    One of my original accounts on the local news rag got banned because I was posting on an article about someone who got jacked up by the police because he was sitting in his car in front of his house at 3am.

    The copsuckers came in and indicated that anyone sitting in their car in front of their house at 3am was up to no good so cops actions reasonable... anyhoo, this led to that, and I said "You wouldn't think that if you got tazed and beaten by a cop..."

    He reported me as "making threatening comments" and *poof* banned. So even the newpaper staff couldn't tell the difference between a threat and a description of a hypothetical.

    Bottom line, a bunch of tweens hired to be Mark Zuckerberg censorship stormtroopers aren't going to be very good at making critical decisions based on nuance.

    1. SQRLSY One   7 years ago

      "You wouldn't think that if you got tazed and beaten by a cop..."

      If you're the boss in charge of the cops, I could think that to be a threat... Otherwise, if you give NO indication that the cops report to you, if I call that a threat, you might be justified to say that I am tripping on LSD...

      (Actually I am a masochist, can you send them over to beasty-beat me up? I am wearing lace-decorated handcuffs as we chat here...)

    2. Arcxjo   7 years ago

      "The copsuckers came in and indicated that anyone sitting in their car in front of their house at 3am was up to no good"

      A woman afraid to sleep in the same bed as her abusive husband who just staggered home drunk.

      Of course, the copsuckers don't want to sticking up for the cop's wife, so scratch that one.

    3. DarrenM   7 years ago

      .. . either out of maliciousness or stupidity

      There's no reason it can't be both.

  18. Detroit Linguist   7 years ago

    Related comment--I had thought this was media hype, but I happen to be taking a university course with a bunch of traditional undergraduates, and yes, several of them had actually done this. They thought it was no big thing. I don't know exactly how dangerous it actually is (probably better than a dishwasher tablet--that stuff is caustic) but it's somewhat worse than goldfish. Or am I showing my age.

    1. BYODB   7 years ago

      I suspect that those undergraduates...

      ...did not swallow.

      1. Longtobefree   7 years ago

        At least not without enthusiastic, ongoing, consent.

  19. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   7 years ago

    It's sadly true that thousands of kids ages six and younger eat highly poisonous Tide pods each year, though only a handful of them die as a result.

    Talking about the parents here is:

    [ ] racist
    [ ] victim blaming
    [ ] shilling for KKKorporashuns
    [ ] victims of the Era of Trump

  20. Juice   7 years ago

    Well, that meme is problematic.

    I had a rare encounter with a couple of straight up 23 year old millennials and they were touting the wonders of socialism to me. It seemed every time I countered one of their claims or made one of my own, "well, that's problematic." Just about everything else that came out of their mouths was some sort of millennial stereotype. "What about past oppression?" "What about privilege?" etc. Also, whatever point they made they'd say it with a smirk and a smug tone as if what they just said was the coup de gras and they just got me good forever. I have only run into people like this online. I never thought they were real people, but there they were, actually speaking to me face to face. It was interesting.

    1. BYODB   7 years ago

      23 is the new 16. They think they know everything, and it's because they haven't had a job yet.

    2. Tony   7 years ago

      But what about past oppression?

      They're smug and annoying but they think more deeply about things than a libertarian, whose goal in life seems to be finding easy answers for everything, especially if they benefit them personally.

      1. Agammamon   7 years ago

        What about past oppression? Then you go get the people who were oppressed in the past and the people who did the oppressing in the past and you sort it out.

        You don't point at me and say 'you have vaguely the same color skin as one of those groups therefore you must pay out or be paid out to'.

        1. Tony   7 years ago

          In my opinion it only matters to the extent that it affects current ability to achieve. You're selling a market in which anyone can become a success if he just tries hard enough. If past oppression leads to present society-wide imbalances, it's not something to simply ignore. Unless you're willing to admit that market outcomes are informed largely by vast injustices and are thus nothing to celebrate as some kind of optimum.

          1. Incomprehensible Bitching   7 years ago

            Clearly, children excel at figuring out how the progressive adult world is supposed to work.

            I credit our universal education system.

          2. Juice   7 years ago

            If past oppression leads to present society-wide imbalances, it's not something to simply ignore.

            No one said you had to just ignore it outright, but skin color or ethnic heritage doesn't place some kind of special obligation on anyone.

            1. Tony   7 years ago

              It might place an obligation on society.

          3. epsilon given   7 years ago

            Yes, exactly! Which is why I oppose Socialism, and anything that looks vaguely like it, so much!

            Because Socialism has done more to oppress people than anything else mankind has yet devised.

        2. Juice   7 years ago

          Wow, Agammamon, that was pretty much my reply.

    3. Finrod   7 years ago

      Sounds like two people begging to be punched in the face repeatedly.

  21. Juice   7 years ago

    It's a joke, akin to the faux public mourning of Harambe the gorilla.

    FAUX? How dare you!

    1. IceTrey   7 years ago

      Dicks out for Harambe!

  22. Tony   7 years ago

    "As a private business, Facebook is within its rights to restrict content for any reason it wants. But . . ."

    Sorry, you chose this life. No buts.

    Otherwise you won't be able to shut down entire volumes of discussion about worker rights and such with just this excuse.

    1. Juice   7 years ago

      When has Reason ever shut down any discussion?

      1. Longtobefree   7 years ago

        When your posts or responses seem to vanish into thin air, yet other posts or responses, without 'certain words' go straight through?

    2. epsilon given   7 years ago

      No, the "but" here is pretty substantial.

      If Facebook wants to be content neutral, then it CANNOT engage in political censorship. Period.

      That doesn't necessarily mean we want the Government to crack down on Facebook, mind you. It DOES mean, however, that we're going to call out Facebook when it isn't neutral.

  23. Ornithorhynchus   7 years ago

    Somehow, I had never heard anything about this Tide Pod fad until Friday. There was a musician playing in a bar who made several jokes about it. I had no idea what he was talking about.

  24. croaker   7 years ago

    #PutZuckerbergInJail

  25. JeremyR   7 years ago

    I eagerly await the article from Rico Soave calling this guy a "snowflake" for complaining he was being censored...

    Oh wait...

  26. JeremyR   7 years ago

    Also, what's the deal with Tide pods to begin with? Is it that hard to pour some detergent into a cup?

    1. VinniUSMC   7 years ago

      I would suggest mixing it with Sprite in that case. Probably easier to get down.

    2. fghtrjljkjbvbxf   7 years ago

      Don't trigger the snowflakes!

  27. Cloudbuster   7 years ago

    Any teen dumb enough to eat a Tide pod is doing the gene pool a favor if he manages to die from it. Chow down, kids!

  28. All Seeing Eye   7 years ago

    Why are so many libertarians on the speech quashing, libtard agenda pushing, CIA fronts known as Facebook (and Twitter) anyway? I'd encourage you to look at the free speech based Gab instead. No censorship of any kind except by the individual account holder who can choose what to view or not view.

  29. Irwin Chusid   7 years ago

    Facebook supports Net "Neutrality," so this must be some kind of aberration. "Neutrality" is a great word. It's all about fairness. Like adding the word "Affordable" to a piece of legislation.

  30. fghtrjljkjbvbxf   7 years ago

    Sorry in advance to Facebook users but you would have to be an idiot to be on Facebook/Twitter/Gmail these days. There are others but why in the world would someone put their entire trust in such an evil company who does not care how they affect you with a ban?

    Boycott facebook now. If they haven't violated your trust yet, they will!

  31. Hank Phillips   7 years ago

    Robbie still confuses Comstock law conservatives with libertarians. The difference was published in the YAF newsletter in 1980. Libertarians aren't out to coerce anyone, not even females. Comstock blue law christianofascists still believe condoms kill babies, as in 1873, but reserve their carpet-biting fits over the thought of females exercising individual rights by other means. Ron Paul? Randal Paul? conservative republicans. John Hospers? Toni Nathan? Libertarian. Roe v. Wade decision? Copied from 1972 LP platform.
    Face it, the Prohibition party pushing the Comstock laws is still around, and mystics don't have minds to change.

  32. John Galtt   7 years ago

    Silly libbies, pods are for laundry.

  33. Perry de Havilland   7 years ago

    And the moral of the story is not that facebook is wicked, it is why the f*uk are you still using facebook? There is a whole internet out there that is not within Zuckerberg's patrolled & carefully marketed playpen. Stop being someone else's product.

  34. Eman   7 years ago

    Kids eating laundry detergent while rome burns. Diverting!

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case

Billy Binion | 5.28.2025 5:21 PM

RFK Jr. Denigrates Privately Funded Medical Research

Joe Lancaster | 5.28.2025 3:55 PM

Can Trump Yank Harvard's Remaining Federal Funding?

Emma Camp | 5.28.2025 3:30 PM

A Federal Judge Lists 8 Ways That Trump Violated the Constitution by Punishing a Disfavored Law Firm

Jacob Sullum | 5.28.2025 3:15 PM

Elon Musk Is Right. The 'Big Beautiful Bill' Is a Bad Deal.

Eric Boehm | 5.28.2025 1:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!