Twitter Was Already a Hellscape Even Before It Was Set Free
Plus: For Halloween, the editors describe what scares them most about politics and government right now.
Plus: For Halloween, the editors describe what scares them most about politics and government right now.
Does Section 230 shield YouTube from lawsuits about recommendations? Can Twitter be forced to pay damages over the terrorists it hasn’t banned?
The world’s politicians offer a friendly reception to attacks on free speech.
"Upon careful review, we determined this video is not violative of our Community Guidelines and have reinstated it," said a YouTube spokesperson.
A crackdown on insults, hate speech, and misinformation punishes dissenters who express themselves in ways that offend government officials.
Democrats and Republicans both demand solutions that are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
It’s a terrible ruling that misunderstands years of First Amendment precedents. And it’s increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will have to intervene.
A new Cato report sheds light on "jawboning," or attempts by state actors "to sway the decisions of private platforms and limit the publication of disfavored speech."
Behind the scenes, federal officials pressure social media platforms to suppress disfavored speech.
Social media companies are eager to appease the government by suppressing disfavored speech.
This is a clear attempt by the administration to tamp down on opinions the adults don't like.
The left-leaning commentator wants to get back to normal. So more than 600 experts want to censor her.
People not only conceal their true beliefs, but often mouth opinions they don’t hold.
Florida’s governor claims unconstitutional powers that could be used to promote the "far-left" policies he decries.
Kyle Mann, the Christian satire site's editor, also talks Biden vs. Trump, and why he saves his deepest burns for mega-pastors like Joel Osteen.
The author of The Master and Margarita faced a bewildering mixture of rewards and censorship.
Ban on mandatory training of certain race topics “is a naked viewpoint-based regulation on speech.”
Billboards remind state residents that controversial speech enjoys First Amendment protection.
A Florida woman has been threatened with fines for giving tips without the proper occupational licensing.
The innocuously-titled Online Safety Bill threatens citizens' rights to privacy and to speak freely.
"Spazzing on that ass" does nothing whatsoever to harm people with cerebral palsy.
"The fact-checking industry has become a partisan arbiter of political disputes," notes Phil Magness.
Deplatforming controversial content is perfectly legal—and often counterproductive.
Plus: DeSantis threatens Miami restaurant over drag performances, Hawley blasts Amazon acquisition that might lower health care prices, and more…
Bitcoin's creator designed it to be radically transparent, but the tools exist to make it as hard to trace as cash.
Antiabortion activists are the new Anthony Comstocks.
An obscure Supreme Court case provides a roadmap through the curricular culture war.
Social media platforms may marginally support free speech. Government censors are trying to stop that.
A new history, Dirty Pictures, explores how underground comix revolutionized art and exploded censorship once and for all.
Are “extremely over-sensitive, Twitter activist people" ruining literature?
Looking back at how abortion advertising bans played out last century may give us some idea what the future holds for speech about abortion.
World journalists have been quicker than Americans to see danger in prosecuting the Wikileaks founder.
The WikiLeaks founder faces espionage charges for publishing classified U.S. information, a prosecution with serious implications for all our First Amendment protections.
They shot and killed a man they were trying to evict. Doesn’t the public have the right to know who they are?
Under Biden, Trump, and Obama, government federal spending almost doubled.
Politicians respond to often unfounded fears with aggressive laws that interfere with individual and family choices.
"The platform's choice to release this special now, during a wave of unprecedented anti-trans legislation, is unconscionable," according to Vox.
A new ruling says Twitter and Facebook are not “common carriers" and thus cannot be forced to carry politicians' messages.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks