Section 230 Is the Internet's First Amendment. Now Both Republicans and Democrats Want To Take It Away.
From Josh Hawley to Kamala Harris, online free speech is under attack.
From Josh Hawley to Kamala Harris, online free speech is under attack.
The presidential hopeful alleges the company violated her First Amendment rights when it suspended her campaign advertising site for 6 hours.
"I'm trying to figure out how the same links that are in this contract that you were paid $7,500 to remove end up in a fake court order with the client's name?"
Stephanie Gilliard argued "that offers of employment have been rescinded after Google searches of her name revealed the events of this case, namely her surreptitious recordings of her co-workers."
Both Democrats and Republicans are cheerleading for government action against Facebook, Google, Amazon, and the rest, but Americans should be skeptical.
A trivial encounter between two irate grocery shoppers becomes a viral story, then a hate hoax.
Fans of the state's new Chick-fil-A law should take a look at the anti–Boycott, Divestments, and Sanctions law.
Lindsey Graham, who once called Trump a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot," seems to agree.
Unsurprisingly, the exact allegations that are said to be libelous don't appear in the complaint.
Donald Trump is far from the only person who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights.
No diploma, no making money telling people how to eat better.
The pundit made the claim at a Senate hearing on allegations of tech censorship against conservatives.
The plaintiff, Yan Huang, is vice minister of China's Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development. Defendant, Wengui Guo, who also goes by Miles Kwok, has been described as a "renegade Chinese billionaire," who fled China and now lives in New York.
The late Supreme Court justice was an inconsistent defender of civil liberties.
The retired Supreme Court justice has died at 99.
Trump supports a bill that would encourage censorship in the name of free speech.
The government shouldn't pass special laws that prevent people from revealing what's true.
Farm groups get politicians to pass laws against secret filming on farms.
Dr. Calvin Day had claimed that describing his suspension as based on "unprofessional conduct" was libelous. (He had also earlier sought to get dismissed criminal charges expunged, and tried to bind local news outlets to the expungement order.) He lost, and was ordered to pay over $80,000 in attorney's fees.
UC–Santa Barbara's Title IX office is "aware of this matter and actively engaged in a response."
(Disclosure: I had filed an objection, on my own behalf, to the motion to seal.)
A scientific consensus has emerged that trigger warnings just don't work—and student activists should stop demanding them.
More than just a mixed metaphor -- it's a legal doctrine.
Aggressive asset forfeiture collides with First Amendment rights.
At his social media summit on Thursday, the president ranted incoherently about the media's "crooked," "dishonest," and "dangerous" speech.
The idea that the internet should enjoy minimal government oversight precisely because it was a technology that enabled open and free speech for everyone has been turned on its head.
Plus: Air-launched rockets, the GOP becomes the party of Trump, and Pelosi feuds with AOC.
"The cost of not doing this is the harm done to other Googlers every time they encounter these terms," says the company's diversity and inclusion team.
An interesting D.C. trial court decision from last year, involving an image of nudity submitted as part of a court case.
The president invited Republican lawmakers as well as social media stars who claim that tech giants are suppressing free speech.
The New York congresswoman's use of Twitter seems similar to the president's in constitutionally relevant ways.
New Orleans can't use zoning regulations to decide what counts as artistic expression.
The plaintiff had pleaded guilty to, among other things, having sex with a minor (apparently when he was 21 and the minor was 15); the alleged libel stemmed from, among other things, reports of that crime.
So a district court held today.
Today’s decision fits awkwardly with a usual element of a designated public forum – that the government has created rules allowing for open discourse and is thus bound by those rules.
Few people who tweeted #NotMyAriel were actually upset about Halle Bailey portraying the mermaid princess.
The court says the "interactive space" created by his account is a public forum, meaning that the president's viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment.
The reasoning would apply to other politicians' accounts that are seen as "official" rather than personal, and to accounts that are run by government entities (such as school boards) rather than individual politicians.
Jon Goldsmith was charged with third-degree harassment after calling Deputy Cory Dorsey a "stupid sum bitch" online.
An interesting Massachusetts decision from a couple of months ago, upholding a trial court's refusal to seal under such circumstances.
An anonymous lawsuit claims that it's tortious to try to artificially boost the prominence of an embarrassing article.
An academic debate turns into professional and legal accusations.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) has proposed a dreadful bill that would give the government control of internet content. He thinks the only reason anyone could be opposed is because they've been bought off.
Nicole Prause and Donald Hilton, longtime opponents on the subject of pornography, are now facing off in court.
The Supreme Court has held that the government generally may not terminate contracts with contractors based on their constitutionally protected speech; the same likely applies to financial incentives..
That's what a New York trial court decision just posted online today held -- correctly, I think.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.