Support Reason To Support Free Speech and Open Debate
Your donations help us keep the culture of free speech alive.

Reason's 17th annual Webathon is just about over. But it's not too late to give!
So before this once-a-year give-us-your-money party concludes, I want to make one more appeal: Give us your money, because Reason will always stand on the side of open debate and free speech.
Over the last decade, Americans have seen a notable degradation in the culture of free speech, especially online.
The desire to shut down speech isn't limited to one party or side. From campus shout-downs to online cancellations to social media shadow bans and various forms of demonetization, our cultural and political discourse has been overtaken by self-appointed censors who think that the best way to promote good speech is by stopping others from saying what they believe. Somehow, we've even gotten to the point where some people think it's a mistake for journalists to interview politicians with beliefs they find objectionable.
Often this impulse has been justified on the grounds that the speech in question is hateful, impolitic, or part of a campaign of mis- or disinformation. The censors insist that it's not really censorship, because it's for the public good.
The problem is that censorship doesn't stop bad speech, it just pushes it into the shadows. It's a form of prohibition, and it creates what is essentially a black market for ideas. In the process, it fuels demand for ideas that have been labeled dangerous, sometimes with ugly results. Censorship paves the way to distrust, institutional decay, and social unrest.
At Reason, in contrast, we believe that the best way to respond to bad speech is with more speech—with argument, with persuasion, with humor, with evidence, with civil but forceful debate about the big ideas that define our world.
When you support Reason, you support free speech, open debate, the politics of persuasion—and even, now and then, some feisty arguments.
We believe in the value of debate so much that later this month we are starting a brand! New! Debate series!
It's called Reason Versus.
Reason Versus is a live, in-person, butts-in-seats debate series that pits Reason against other organizations on big ideas that divide us. The inaugural edition will be hosted by me, and it will take place at the Howard Theater in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, December 18. The first! Ever! Reason Versus will pit Reason's Editors at Large Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie against Sarah Longwell and Tim Miller of The Bulwark. The proposition? "You don't have to take sides in politics."
This isn't our only debate series: Reason also sponsors The Soho Forum, a libertarian-themed debate series recorded monthly before a live audience in New York City.
And when we're not hosting debates, we're having conversations on shows like The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie and Just Asking Questions.
Our goal, always, is to put more good speech—more good ideas and arguments and evidence—into the world. Because the hard but valuable work of persuasion, not censorship or shutdowns, is how you ultimately win the battle of ideas.
Donate to Reason today to help us host more debates and more conversations. Your support helps us fight those battles—and win.
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.
Please
to post comments
Hard to believe Reason actually has the gall to boast about defending freedom of speech against government censorship after so much "muh private company" gaslighting, and so much hysteria about Musk destroying Twitter so that everybody needed to move to Mastodon and Bluesky and whoever else I've forgotten.
Unless it is companies being pressured by government to censor speech.*
Got to keep muh private companies narrative.
Oh. And make sure if there is support it is deathly quiet support for: baker, Mackey, okeefe, etc
And anti support for: Alex Jones, Trump, etc.
What part of libertarian principles prefers begging to selling a product people want at a price people are willing to pay?
I didn't like it - or buy it - when crunchy granolas made the heart symbol and, while sitting in their comfy chairs at home told Africans plagued by poverty, starvation and terrorist kidnappings how much they felt their pain and "supported" them (what - emotionally?)
... and I don't like it when Reason tells us that their articles "support" the victims of government over-reach and unconstitutional enforcement. Although I certainly support Reason's efforts to shine the bright light on government miscreants (both "emotionally" and "financially") it does no one any good to pretend that our few scattered successes represent any kind of victories in the losing war against government power.
As others have stated, Reason has been pretty quiet about or defended the biggest violations of free speech in the last several years. I find the suggestion that there is any actual debate from the writers laughable as well. They all come from the same cosmopolitan worldview and have at best minor nuances rather than a true diversity of thought.
For some reason we are just now getting a decent volume of (lukewarm) articles critical of the Biden administration. They have been absent in criticizing the administration in power over the last 4 years and even now reserve more time and energy into potential issues with a Trump administration.
Being generous, Reason gets a D for journalism and an outright F for libertarian principles
Wait, in the 'you don't have to pick a side, maaan' in politics debate, do Welch and Gillespie argue in the affirmative, thus proving the commenters' theory that they haven't even picked the Libertarian side?
Everyone knows that a Real Libertarian listens to the Joe Rogan podcast, or Matt Taibbi, or Glenn Greenwald, and believes everything that they and their guests say.
Everyone knows that the real 'culture of free speech' means that everyone should be free to say whatever they like without fear of not just government censorship, but also social retribution*.
*Exceptions: speech promoting abortion, speech promoting LGBTQ issues, speech promoting unpatriotic behavior like burning flags, speech criticizing white people, speech criticizing traditional morals or Christian values, speech promoting illegal immigration, and other speech to be determined later by true MAGA patriots
Hey it's the local idiot! Everyone has free speech. You don't have freedom from consequences. Yes, I see the MAGAs locking so many people up for speaking out...oh wait. I see pro-abortion being locked up, oh wait that's your side locking up anti-abortion protesters.
Shouldn't you be at Bluesky with all the other thin skinned, hateful people. Go there and say there is only a man and a woman. See how long it takes to get banned.
Wait, are you really Taylor Lorenz?
You lost him at the word thin.
Mute that lonely drunk. They aren’t worth anything, replying is a waste of your time, and fellow Commentariate get their thread clogged!
When my little one gets older and says “daddy, whats gaslighting”…I’ll show her this article
If there weren’t so many TDS articles here, I might consider it Libertarian and neutral.
But it’s NOT, so NO.
Fuck NO I’m not giving Reason money to trash my side.