Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Sex

Sex Educators Say They're Being Harmed by Age Verification Laws

Plus: Wisconsin governor vetoes porn age-check bill, more charges for penis protester, the Komodo dragon theory of social media, and more...

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 4.6.2026 11:45 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Classroom setting, with a hand holding a smartphone with an age verification message | Nandovidal81/Dreamstime/Envato
(Nandovidal81/Dreamstime/Envato)

"Oh, so you want kids to look at pornography?" That's the absurd accusation often thrown at people who oppose age verification mandates for online adult content. Opponents of these laws counter that actually this is about adult free speech: Grown-ups should be able to create, publish, and view constitutionally protected erotic content without undue burden or infringement on their privacy. And indeed, that's the message Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers put forth recently when vetoing an age verification law in his state.

But there's another important—if less prevalent—argument against the age verification laws sweeping so many states: They may ensnare way more than just pornography. Enacted as regulations of any content "harmful to minors," these could be used against sex educators, sexual health organizations, reproductive freedom groups, sex worker rights advocates, transgender rights advocates, and queer creators of all sorts.

You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.

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

"If you let them ban porn, they will call you pornographic when they ban you," Bluesky user @ghostingdani.bsky.social posted recently. Replace "ban" with "put special, burdensome regulations on," and the same applies here.

A new poll from the Woodhull Freedom Foundation hints at some of the unintended consequences (or, some might speculate, intended albeit unspoken consequences) of these age verification mandates. In March, the sexual freedom advocacy group conducted a national survey "of sex educators and other sexual health professionals" to see how age verification laws aimed at adult content were affecting them.

This was a small initial survey, with just 56 respondents, so do not take this as the final word on anything. But nearly a fifth of the sex educators surveyed (18 percent)—and a third of those working in states with age verification laws in effect—said these mandates had already impacted their work in some way. The vast majority of sex educators (76 percent) and a majority of sexual health professionals (53 percent) said they were concerned about what these laws would do down the road.

Hopefully we'll find out more on the subject soon. "Woodhull plans to expand the survey's reach this spring to better understand how different populations and practices are being affected by these laws," the group said in a press release.

It's an urgently needed inquiry. Around half of U.S. states have now passed rules requiring that sexually oriented web platforms to check IDs or engage in some other form of state-approved age verification.

The copycat popularity of these mandates makes Evers' veto in Wisconsin extra-surprising (and admirable). Evers refused to sign an age verification bill (A.B. 105) for online, sexually oriented material on privacy and free speech grounds.

"I am vetoing this bill in its entirety because I object to the bill's intrusion into the personal privacy of Wisconsin residents," Evers wrote in his veto message. "While I agree that we should protect children from harmful material, this bill imposes an intrusive burden on adults who are trying to access constitutionally protected materials."

The governor pointed out that the "sensitive, personally identifiable information" websites would have to collect under this bill could be sold to the government or "intercepted by or transmitted to a third party and used as the basis for blackmail or identity theft."


In the News: More Charges for Penis Protester  

Throwing the book at an inflatable penis: Renea Gamble protested against President Donald Trump in an inflatable penis costume last fall and got arrested for it. Authorities in Fairhope, Alaska, charged Gamble with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. "In Fairhope and around the country, many people were outraged at the cops' manhandling of a grandmother in her 60s. But it also seemed obvious that the case would go away once cooler heads prevailed," writes Liliana Segura at The Intercept. Not so:

Instead, the city of Fairhope doubled down. Rather than dropping the case, the city attorney slapped Gamble with additional charges earlier this year: disturbing the peace and giving a false name to law enforcement. Her trial, first set to take place months ago, has been delayed multiple times. It is now set for April 15….

To Gamble, who has turned down media requests while her prosecution is pending, the case is about much more than her individual rights.

"What Renea has been saying all along is that it's not so much about her," said [Gamble's lawyer, David] Gespass. "It's the Constitution and the First Amendment that are on trial."


On Substack

It's Komodo dragons all the way down: In a new Silver Bulletin post titled "Social media is turning into a freak show," Nate Silver shares the following chart, displaying X's most-engaged-with accounts:

Silver Bulletin

 

"There's a principle in ecology known as the island effect," Silver comments, where "in an isolated environment, strange things tend to happen":

There are all sorts of weird mutations that might not be survivable in a more competitive environment that can actually become fitness advantages on an island. Big animals tend to get smaller, and small animals tend to get bigger—like the Komodo dragon, whose range is limited to a few isolated islands in Indonesia.

That's basically what Twitter looks like now, "only with Catturd and the Gavin Newsom Press Office accounts locked in combat instead of a couple of (cute?) lizards."


Read This Thread

Indicators of Major Psychiatric Problems Didn't Improve After Youth Gender-Transition Treatment In Finland—They Rosehttps://t.co/sCoefigLeN
The study, which was based on comprehensive nationalized health data and included control groups, calls into question the claim that such… pic.twitter.com/ET0QboibSF

— Benjamin Ryan (@benryanwriter) April 5, 2026

Ryan's thread delves into the new findings as well as sharing some criticism of them.


More Sex & Tech News

Love to see people using vibe coding tech to build tools to fight back against the government. For months, lone vibe coder Rafael Concepcion has obsessively built tools to counter the federal immigration crackdown—pivoting as he's been outmatched.

— Taylor Lorenz (@taylorlorenz.bsky.social) 2026-04-05T18:13:58.344Z

• In Missouri, a judge could decline to finalize a divorce if the woman was pregnant. House Bill 1908, which just passed both houses of the state's legislature, aims to change this.

• Was "millennial feminism" responsible for "hookup culture"? No, suggests Cartoons Hate Her. (There's a bunch I disagree with in this post, but I think the general idea that "hookup culture" was not some sort of feminist plot is probably correct…)

• Do tech companies own digital data, or do their users? This is one of the questions at the heart of an upcoming Supreme Court case—Chatrie v. United States—in which justices will consider the constitutionality of "geofence warrants."

• Sigh: People are now applying the "addiction" framework to AI agents.

No they are not. Can we stop with sloppy moral panic claims just once?

— Chris Ferguson ????✝️???????????????????????? (@CJFerguson1111) April 5, 2026

• "The owner of two Scottsdale gentlemen's clubs has filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Scottsdale and its police department, accusing investigators of conducting an improper and damaging probe into allegations that customers were drugged," according to 12 News Phoenix.

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: 'I Am Blowing Up Everything'

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a senior editor at Reason.

SexInternetFree SpeechFirst AmendmentPornographyWeb & BlogsPrivacySex WorkChildrenTeenagersWisconsinLaw & Government
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (40)

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. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

    May as well put "Pedophiles are being harmed with age verification" as your header given the state of sex education and the average Leftist's push for degeneracy and sexual grooming of children, ENB absolutely included in that.

    1. Bruce D   2 months ago

      Exactly how do age verification laws protect against pedophilia? Most paedophilic acts are committed by family members or someone acquainted with the victim, not some stranger over the internet. Pedophiles by definition are over the age of consent and will not be affected by a ban on underaged youth. Maybe identity verification laws might keep some underage people from opening accounts at dating sites. But, again, most abuse is committed by someone already known to the victim, often family members. But, would the type of underage people sophisticated enough to open accounts on dating sites be the types that need protection? If they're banned from dating sites, they can still get on social media sites. Maybe ban anyone under 18 from all social media or from the internet in general. That'll ignite a '60s-style youth rebellion.

      Conservatives have an exaggerated concern with pedophilia. They seem to think there are pedophiles everywhere. I think that's conservatives' own projection. In reality, I think pedophilia is quite rare. I think conservatives use the moral panic over children to go after internet privacy for adult prostitution.

  2. mad.casual   2 months ago

    (or, some might speculate, intended albeit unspoken consequences)

    GTFO pedophile.

    This is chemjeff-level "Whatfor muh Snow Whyte?" retardation. Nobody's stopping anyone from studying mammalian and/or other animal sexual reproduction. Even the Galleria dell'Accademia admits minors for free, but requires children under 12 to be accompanied by an adult. You aren't pushing for sex education and your "intended albeit unspoken" dishonesty was out the window when "Conservative Bathroom Panic" turned into cutting off children's genitals and forcing girls to share locker rooms with boys.

    You are your own FUD/fearmonger.

    1. damikesc   2 months ago

      Do you think her husband LIKES being such a cuck with the way she blows Koch to keep a job?

  3. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    Age verification laws implemented: Foucault's successors most affected.

  4. mad.casual   2 months ago

    Sex Educators

    Speaking of "intended albeit unspoken", this is "reproductive healthcare" as euphemism for abortion isn't it? My sex ed classes were taught by the health, biology, and/or phys. ed. teachers. They required parental consent first. Same for my own kids. The materials were specifically health related and, because many of us had access to or had seen pornography (even in the pre-internet days) we would've laughed in your face if you'd said "Age verification of pornography could be a problem". Not for the ability for someone to consider them pornographic, but to the degree to which they had already been scrubbed free of pornography or even artistry. This is like worrying Georgia O'Keeffe paintings or violin plots might get banned.

    For millions of years humans and even lower mammals have managed to figure out sex without "Sex Educators". If they are an actual self-standing occupation at public schools, they should be shit-canned entirely without regard for age-verification laws. If age verification laws are a problem for them, they should be fired, rehired, and then fired again.

  5. Agammamon   2 months ago

    >could be used against sex educators, sexual health organizations, reproductive freedom groups, sex worker rights advocates, transgender rights advocates, and queer creators of all sorts.

    Mostly against the ones that aren't providing age appropriate sex ed - which should be approved by parents - and those that are producing pornography aimed at children.

    ENB, pedophiles consider themselves 'chikd sex educators'.

  6. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

    It is well established that people who had comprehensive sex ed make better choices that lead to lower STDs and lower unplanned pregnancies. To deny comprehensive sex ed is to put one's own puritan notions above the health and safety of others.

    1. Zeb   2 months ago

      So are the only two options comprehensive sex ed and [something that isn't comprehensive sex ed]? This observation is meaningless without a comparison to what the alternatives were. I'd like to think that it's possible to effectively educate kids on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs without offending most parent's sensibilities. Shouldn't require anything remotely pornographic. And I'm not talking "abstinence only" either. Don't think that's a realistic option at this point.

      1. Idaho-Bob   2 months ago

        We need to define "kids" when sexual content is discussed. Molly and its ilk would defend strangers talking to 5 yo's about pregnancy and STDs. It already defends strangers transitioning other peoples' children.

        This justifies woodchippering.

        1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

          If 5 yo's are being raped by parents or others, they need sex ed to know what is happening to report it and keep themself safe. Why are you against kids reporting being raped?

          1. Rick James   2 months ago

            Why are you against kids reporting being raped?

            We tried to report it, but the "sex educators" stood athwart the process and yelled "stop!"

            1. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

              MAGAs have a very strong aversion for child abusers being brought to justice.

              1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

                Like how Florida made it a capital offenses. Youre a retard.

                Leo tried this retarded talking point of yours too.

              2. damikesc   2 months ago

                California Democrats are prepared to elect a noted pedo to replace Pelosi.

                Then again, Dems are also preparing to elect a Nazi in Maine.

      2. Agammamon   2 months ago

        The other question is, as always 'what is the compelling government interest in sex education of any kind'?

        Once that question is answered then we can explore the limits of that interest. As long as these people dodge that question 'but of course the government should teach sex ed' then you can't get to the limits of what the government should be teaching.

        1. Bruce D   2 months ago

          If the government or anyone is going to teach a proper and comprehensive understanding of biology or psychology, it'll have to include sexual reproduction albeit in a strictly clinical way.

  7. Agammamon   2 months ago

    >Opponents of these laws counter that actually this is about adult free speech

    You write this but . . . most of your objections (at least in Reason) seem to center around 'sex education' of minors and minor's access to 'educational material'.

    How much sex education do adults need? 'Reproductive Freedom' groups - that is just a euphemism for 'organizations pushing for unrestricted abortion' with a small side of birth control access. Sex worker rights activists aren't going to be targeted by anti-pornography laws unless they're producing pornography. So not activists but cam-girls who are losing money because 16 year olds can't subscribe anymore.

    What is it about 'transgender rights' that is inherently sexual? YOU ALL TOLD US DRAG SHOWS AREN'T SEXUAL! and are appropriate for children. 'Ladypenis' in the locker room is fine, right?

    Finally 'queer creators of all sorts'? A queer creator can not create anything that isn't inherently sexual? A queer directs a remake of '2001' and, *of course* they're gonna have to put butt-sex in there? Because they're queer? If you are on the LGBT+ then your only defining characteristic is sex and sexuality?

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      The thing is never the thing. The thing behind the thing is never the thing. They're just distractions or cover for the thing. The real thing is always the revolution.

      This is free speech absolutism as cover for activism (as cover for forced social policy). Pornography may be protected speech. Obviously, rape scenes and scenes between related adults can/do evoke some valid libertarian concerns about consent even strictly among consenting adults. Especially given the commonality of "buyer's remorse" and Christine Blasey-Ford-style "repressed memories". Showing pornography to children isn't speech. There's a case to be had that kids sneaking in the back door to a theater doesn't mean anyone is criminally responsible, but the idea that PH requiring age verification means teachers (duly licensed with Union Membership Cards, Continuing Education credits, annual Youth Protection Training, and parental consent forms in hand) won't be able to access educational materials is retardedly orthogonal. Showing pornography to children in school as some sort of ideological, implemented policy definitely isn't free speech.

    2. Zeb   2 months ago

      A queer creator can not create anything that isn't inherently sexual?

      Evidence suggests that the answer is no (or yes, depending on how you parse double negatives). "Queer" is largely trolling to freak out the squares.

      1. Rick James   2 months ago

        What's fascinating about our current era is that saying you know what a woman is quite literally freaks out the squares. As many a cultural observer has noted, the trans thing IS the foundational belief of the establishment. Nothing freaks out the squares more than to express skepticism of an intact male in the changing room with your daughter, or question why the governor in the state with the highest retail theft in the nation vetoed $500,000 for new programs to curb "organized retail theft" but didn't veto $1,000,000 per annum laser hair removal program for transgender prison inmates.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          And the more general fascinating thing (to me) is that lots of those
          "squares" still believe that they are the counterculture sticking it to the man. I don't know how much of that is elderly boomers trying to relive the 60s (or what they like to tell people they were doing in the 60s).

          1. Rick James   2 months ago

            "squares" still believe that they are the counterculture sticking it to the man.

            But enough about Nick Gillespie...

      2. Agammamon   2 months ago

        I would point to the Wachowskis - none of their work really pushes sex (except, of course, 'Bound';) or explores 'queer' or 'trans' themes.

        They're just a couple of trans who make competent but self-indulgent movies. They don't focus on 'trans issue' or 'representation' (though 'The Matrix' was ripe for early insertion of trans characters).

        So its not really 'queer creators of all sorts' - its creators of explicitly sexual content of all sorts, queer or otherwise. Cis-Het people make crazy fetish stuff all the time, including 'queer' stuff and queer people are perfectly capable of making mainstream content.

        1. Zeb   2 months ago

          Yeah, I was thinking more of "queer" modifying creator, as that seemed to be what the article was talking about, not creators who happen to identify as queer or trans or whatever.

        2. damikesc   2 months ago

          Well, they made one excellent movie and two decidedly mid ones.

          1. Agammamon   2 months ago

            They made *two* excellent movies;)

            1. damikesc   2 months ago

              Only saw their Matrix movies and the first was excellent while the other two were just tedious bores. The Reason podcasts of the movie world.

  8. JonFrum   2 months ago

    Someone can't read.

    " Was "millennial feminism" responsible for "hookup culture"? No, suggests Cartoons Hate Her. (There's a bunch I disagree with in this post, but I think the general idea that "hookup culture" was not some sort of feminist plot is probably correct…)"

    Cant tell the difference between 'responsible for' and 'some sort of feminist plot. Feminism "smash gender barriers" led directly to transgender acceptance. It's not what they were thinking in 1975, but it came about as a direct result of their ideology. The road to hell, and all.

    1. mad.casual   2 months ago

      As above, there is also, again, "the thing is never the thing".

      Hookup culture was never a thing. Whether created by feminists or anti-hedonists, or both, it was a myth; a myth that served the feminist narratives about women "taking control of their own sexuality", freezing their eggs while girlbossing it up, and secretly voting for Kamala Harris behind their evil, MAGA husbands' backs.

      There's been the analogy of accusing the people with defensive stab wounds of being equally guilty as the person holding the knife, but at this point, we're talking about feminists who have been caught, bloody-knife-in-hand, serially, that are openly lamenting about what those other people potentially *could* do at some point down the road with the knife in their pocket.

      "1 in 4 women" was *actually* used to impose beyond-prudish standards for sexual activity among adults. Abortion defense *actually* led to defending outright murders by physicians and 10 yr. olds getting "secret"/"private"/"her body, her choice" abortions to conceal the identity of their rapists. Sexual post-modernism has *actually* given us a female SCOTUS jurist who can't answer the question, "What is a woman?" But it's the possibility that, somehow, "sex educators" won't be able to get medical diagrams of penises and uteruses for their students that's the real threat.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Indeed. The 1 in 4 statistic was so laughably bullshit (college campuses are MORE risky than any city in the US ever?) because if it was remotely true, no women would ever attend a college.

        Feminists demanded the most puritanical sexual behavior (the whole "must receive consent for every single step in the sexual process" was a laughable inanity) and are now upset that what they demanded is what is in effect now.

        Feminism has been a shitty movement since its inception.

  9. Rick James   2 months ago

    Ryan's thread delves into the new findings as well as sharing some criticism of them.

    "new findings" lol.

    Oh, days since last Taylor Lorenz reference: 0

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      Chances that Taylor Lorenz even knows what 'vibe coding' is: ~0%

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        [tilts hand]

        My dog knows what fetching is. My toaster knows what toasting is.

  10. Rick James   2 months ago

    "There's a principle in ecology known as the island effect," Silver comments, where "in an isolated environment, strange things tend to happen":

    There are all sorts of weird mutations that might not be survivable in a more competitive environment that can actually become fitness advantages on an island. Big animals tend to get smaller, and small animals tend to get bigger—like the Komodo dragon, whose range is limited to a few isolated islands in Indonesia.

    That's basically what Twitter looks like now, "only with Catturd and the Gavin Newsom Press Office accounts locked in combat instead of a couple of (cute?) lizards."

    Did Nate Silver just produce a bunch of words and syllables without actually saying anything?

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      Is it just me or is the left strangely obsessed with Twitter, stalking it kind of like an unstable ex-wife keeps calling her ex-husband and hangs up whenever his new wife answers the phone? It's like they all say how empowered they are now that they're rid of their useless ex-husband, living in BlueSky-- claiming to be totally over Twitter, but they just... can't... let go... And Ex-Husband Twitter has spent exactly 0 minutes thinking about them.

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        I must say, after years of getting hot (chat filtered/AI generated) Ukrainian, Russian, and IDF babes in uniform, the sudden outrage over the AI-generated Army hussie that you've never heard of on Instagram suddenly makes a lot more sense.

        The Independent has contacted Meta, Instagram’s parent company, for comment.

        LOL. So when you see a big-breasted cop walk up to your ex-husband's house with her blouse undone down to her sternum, did you call us first or did the local police department *and* the lingerie/costume shop tell you to quit stalking him first?

    2. damikesc   2 months ago

      Weird how when many leftists leave X because it is an open platform for BlueSky, which is very much not one, is X's fault.

      Why do progs hate free speech?

  11. Think It Through   2 months ago

    Renea Gamble protested against President Donald Trump in an inflatable penis costume last fall and got arrested for it. Authorities in Fairhope, Alaska, charged Gamble with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

    Did they, though? Talk about taking a credibility hit.

  12. Rick James   2 months ago

    • Do tech companies own digital data, or do their users? This is one of the questions at the heart of an upcoming Supreme Court case—Chatrie v. United States—in which justices will consider the constitutionality of "geofence warrants."

    I missed this. This is going to be hella interesting. I'm imagining a world of the First Amendment of the Internet where the tech companies are not supposed to be the speaker or publisher of the data their users post, but are found to be the "owners" of that speech.

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

Instacart Is Suing New York City Over Its $22.13 Minimum Wage for Delivery Drivers

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.6.2026 7:00 AM

Native Americans Taught Colonists How To Fight—and To Live Without Kings

Charles C. Mann | From the July 2026 issue

This Attempt by the Trump Administration To Cripple Legal Immigration Is Illegal, Judge Rules

Billy Binion | 6.5.2026 5:33 PM

The Surgeon General's Screen Warning Is Not Science

Adam Omary and Jeffrey A. Singer | 6.5.2026 5:06 PM

Even If Trump's Ballroom Project Is Illegal, a DOJ Lawyer Says, the Courts Cannot Stop It

Jacob Sullum | 6.5.2026 4:00 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 Add Reason to Google

© 2026 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

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks