The Rationale for Deporting Mahmoud Khalil Is Alarmingly Vague and Broad
Marco Rubio’s nebulous invocation of foreign policy interests is bound to have a chilling impact on freedom of speech, which is the whole point.
Marco Rubio’s nebulous invocation of foreign policy interests is bound to have a chilling impact on freedom of speech, which is the whole point.
The court does, however, leave open the possibility that the plaintiff can file an amended complaint that can go forward.
"[A]llowing plaintiff to proceed under a pseudonym could enable her to evade judicial oversight under the vexatious litigant rules by obscuring her litigation history and identity across multiple cases."
Powerful political allies get a pass, while dissenters are crushed with massive fines. This isn’t a flaw in the system—it’s the point.
"[W]hatever harm she claims, it is not imminent, irreparable harm. Her damages, if any, are monetary damages."
"[P]ublic condemnations, op-eds, and official complaints ... through proxies are independent constitutional violations" if the officials "engaged in conduct that was motivated by the plaintiff's protected speech and had the requisite chilling effect on First Amendment activity."
So holds the Ohio Supreme Court.
A federal judge didn't buy the Trump administration's claims about why it was keeping Khalil in an federal immigration detention center.
The court appears unmoved by the claim that an earlier ruling sent the "wrong message ... that people of color (all the plaintiffs are Latino) do not have a chance to get their day in this Honorable Court."
A bill awaiting the governor's signature represents a stark reversal from a 2019 law aimed at promoting "uninhibited debate."
So the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held Tuesday; the decision allows civil liability as well as criminal punishment, once the government official demands that the newspaper (or anyone else) stop publishing this information.
Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman joins Nick Gillespie to discuss toxic identity politics, the rise of grievance-based thinking, and why true self-actualization requires moving beyond victimhood.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act threatens the First Amendment by empowering federal bureaucrats to police political and religious expression.
Now is the perfect time for the FCC to change its precedent to comply with the First Amendment.
"You need to learn the rules," an officer says. "You run your mouth at me. Now you're on your face."
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz highlights the chilling impact of Marco Rubio's dubious rationale for deporting students whose views offend him.
"Federal judges and their court staff are not legal pawns to be deployed in secret by wealthy disputants trying to get private answers to their problems."
One of the Orders calls on federal agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which would label certain criticisms of Israel as anti-Semitic.
The Supreme Court ruled decades ago that burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how offensive that act may be.
With the OneTaste case, the Department of Justice has embraced infantilizing ideas about women, consent, and coercion.
The Fox News personality reflects on her evolution from a contrarian Republican to a libertarian and her belief that personal freedom, humor, and not giving a shit are the keys to a better America.
A temporary order had been issued, but the trial court refused to extend it into a permanent order, and awarded $15K in attorney fees; an appellate court has just upheld the trial court's final decision, and added $8K for appellate attorney fees.
Even if the president was joking in both cases, he already has used his powers to punish people whose views offend him.
Plus: The glorious return of drive-in movie season.
Are outdated laws ripe for abuse? A listener asks whether it's time to sunset certain old laws.
The result is the same: attacks on tech companies and attempts to violate Americans' rights.
Karoline Leavitt's threat against ABC News is an attack on free speech.
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