Texas Public Library Can't Remove Books About 'Butts and Farts,' Federal Judge Says
The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for officials to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."
The court ruled that it is unconstitutional for officials to remove library books with the "intent to deprive patrons of access to ideas with which they disagree."
The plaintiffs hope to "help Republicans and conservatives see why this ban is inconsistent with the free speech values they say they care about."
Officials suspend efforts to force X to suppress the world’s access to video of a crime.
European speech regulations reach way too far to muzzle perfectly acceptable content.
Eric Levitz argues that the left should take a stand against censorship—for practical rather than principled reasons.
Congress is "silencing the 170 million Americans who use the platform to communicate," the company argues.
Local hostility to free speech may become a global problem.
The American Sunlight Project contends that researchers are being silenced by their critics.
Plus: A listener asks the editors to steel man the case for the Jones Act, an antiquated law that regulates maritime commerce in U.S. waters.
Plus: Homework liberation in Poland, Orthodox rabbi tells students to flee Columbia, toddler anarchy, and more...
Banning companies for doing business with China is a bad path to start down.
"Profound irreparable harm flows from the Act's chilling of adults' access to protected sexual expression," the filing reads.
The push to regulate social media content infringes on rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
One viewer said it should be illegal to take the Lord's name in vain on TV—and that was one of the more coherent complaints.
And they're still trying to censor speech on social media.
Martin Kulldorff talks about his dismissal from Harvard Medical School, persisting college vaccine mandates, and surviving COVID-era censorship on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.
The Turkish opposition ran circles around President Recep Tayyib Erdogan's party in local elections. It could be the beginning of the end of his 20-year reign.
"There were many of us who opposed censoring pornography...precisely because of our commitment to feminist goals and principles," says the former ACLU chief.
“Even open democracies have implemented restrictive measures,” finds a global report.
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."