SCOTUS Ponders Whether the Biden Administration Coerced Social Media Platforms To Censor Speech
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
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 company leaves Texas over an “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous” age-verification law.
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
The president of the new University of Austin wants to reverse the decline of higher education in America.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, though, reverses the order, concluding the judge wasn't allowed to issue such an order on his own initiative; it doesn't decide whether such an order would violate the First Amendment.
This bears on when the official's comment deletion or blocking decisions may violate the First Amendment.
"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.
and also because private clubs generally have broad discretion in interpreting their internal rules.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
"Laws like this don't solve the problems they try to address but only make them worse," says a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney.
An "uncompromising" journal cancels an essay for failing to say the right things.
The Fifth Circuit leaves room for possible retroactive pseudonymization of the case, however, though it doesn't decide for certain whether such retroactive pseudonymization is proper.
Part of the facts in an interesting recent case, dealing with plaintiff's claims that the police retaliated against her for exercising her First Amendment rights to report crime.
when in context the statement just expressed "an intention to file a complaint against the conduct of government officials."
Censorship of 2,872 Pennsylvania license plates raises free speech questions.
A new bill would ban TikTok and give the president power to declare other social media apps off limits.
"People are not in politics for truth-seeking reasons," argues the data journalist and author of On The Edge: The Art of Risking Everything.
The culture of public accusation and shaming, in high school (and stemming from a relationship that apparently happened when the accuser and accused were sophomores).
Salina, Kansas, restaurant owner Steve Howard argues in a new lawsuit that the city's sign regulations violate the First Amendment.
A new report from the Future of Free Speech project (a collaboration between Vanderbilt University and Justitia).
The Chick-fil-A story heard 'round the world.
A federal judge in an ongoing case called the porn age-check scheme unconstitutional. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton doesn't seem to care.
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.
The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents believe that America is on the "wrong track" when it comes to free speech.
The monologue was sexually themed, but it's not clear to what extent the court's rationale might extend to situations where a student objects to the monologue for other reasons.
The plaintiffs claimed that 15-year-old Bella Herndon committed suicide because of the film.
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10