Can Jack Dorsey Reinvent the Internet by Making Twitter More Like Email?
The case for a technical free speech fix
The case for a technical free speech fix
Speech was more varied and vibrant than ever before—and then the backlash began.
The greatest threat to protections for our freedom may be people's fear that people who disagree with them are exercising their rights.
Sharyn Rothstein's sharp new play is a smart and timely look at how to balance free speech and privacy in a wired age.
Erroneous reporting set off a bizarre backlash that obscured the real problem.
The ACLU of Washington speaks out.
"I think if we decide we’re just going to immediately hair-trigger cancel anything that might make anyone uncomfortable, we’re missing a chance to teach.”
But any such cancellation would violate the First Amendment, because it would involve viewpoint discrimination in a place opened by the government to private speech.
Conservatives are wrong on policy, and really wrong on facts
The ex-wife had withdrawn her complaint before the court took any substantive action, under circumstances that cast doubt on its accuracy; because of that, a Virginia court agreed that it should be sealed.
Today's censors are using tech policy and social-media outrage to attack your right to think and say what you believe.
Gutting the trade deal would make it easier to strip our speech protections here at home.
Since FOSTA passed in 2018, "sex workers have faced increased violence" and "have been forced onto the streets," the California congressman says.
"CNN is the mother of fake news," reads the introduction to Nunes' new lawsuit.
“If the Court is serious about protecting freedom of expression, we should grant review.”
Singapore ordered Facebook to attach a "false information" message to a news story written by a government critic.
American government agencies (federal, state, and local) can't sue for libel, the Supreme Court has held; but what about foreign countries, or Indian tribes?
Assessment of motives is often an essential tool for protecting our constitutional rights.
"We must remain—especially now—vigilant to any form of discrimination," said National Louis University in a dumb statement.
Bias incident reports, safety concerns, and harassment charges, all because of a slightly trollish Facebook post.
even if there is such a right to videorecord on public streets, holds a federal district court.
The Reason Roundtable panelists ask: Why so many hawks in the anti-Trump clump?
Warning: These are trained litigants; don't try this at home.
The comedian thinks misleading information on social media is ruining society. That's a bit rich, coming from him.
She also frantically tried to find him, and she alerted his family once she knew where he was.
Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang thinks so.
"While such documents may be unflattering to Defendant's business, Defendant has not satisfied the burden of showing that the documents are proprietary in nature. Nor has Defendant satisfied the burden necessary to show that any interest in maintaining secrecy is outweighed by the presumption of access."
Instead of its economy becoming more liberal, its polity is growing more illiberal.
Episode 8 of Free Speech Rules by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh
Criminal charges were eventually dropped, and the civil lawsuit has just been thrown out.
Progressive activists want the newspaper to stop practicing balanced journalism.
That's the claim in a federal lawsuit, which a federal judge just allowed to go forward.
"There is no room in mainstream conservatism or at YAF for holocaust deniers, white nationalists, street brawlers, or racists."
That's the question in a First Amendment lawsuit, which a federal judge has allowed to go forward.
"We’re still doing interviews, speaking with students, learning what was said and the context of the comment."
The presidential hopeful on Thursday released a plan to regulate tech giants.
Vanity plates are private speech in a nonpublic forum, the court holds; restrictions on such speech must be viewpoint-neutral and reasonable.
In comments to CNN on Monday night, Biden expressed a willingness to smash Section 230 in order to settle a feud his campaign is having with Facebook. That's a terrible idea.
And does a Vermont statute mandating such sealing apply in cases that are being litigated in federal court?
"Your statement is defamatory, and we demand that you retract it immediately," Gabbard's lawyer wrote in a letter.
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