The New York Times Sues Pentagon Over 'Retaliatory' Escort Requirement
The Pentagon instituted its new press rules in the fall, prompting a months-long legal battle over the First Amendment.
The Pentagon instituted its new press rules in the fall, prompting a months-long legal battle over the First Amendment.
Perry County Sheriff Nick Weems preposterously claimed that Larry Bushart had threatened "mass violence" at a school.
"Plaintiff suspects he was poisoned by Jews."
Or at least try: A court considered it, but ultimately said no.
Food Not Bombs argues it has a First Amendment right to feed the needy without a permit. That's led to crackdowns and lawsuits around the country.
Most federal appeals courts have recognized the right to record police. DHS employees nevertheless seem to view it as a crime.
Colorado's governor agreed with a state appeals court that the former Mesa County clerk had been punished for her wacky beliefs about the 2020 election as well as her illegal conduct.
But reputational and professional harm is generally not a basis for allowing pseudonymity in most cases (since so many litigants face some such harm from the allegations in their cases being public). Did it make sense to allow it here?
The Trump administration accused Francesca Albanese of “lawfare that targets U.S. and Israeli persons.” But a court said that’s not ground to seize her property.
British speech police try to impose their restrictions on the entire world.
According to plaintiff, “[Prof.] Harner believed Plaintiff’s planned zine project [class assignment] was on ‘the issue of ‘trans’ people sexually assaulting others in prison,’ a topic Harner found ‘so many issues with.’”
The FCC chairman seems determined to impose a requirement that would amount to a ban on interviews with political candidates.
A new lawsuit claims that ChatGPT gave the shooter information about busy times on campus and how to use guns.
The losing party on this had argued, "[The other party's lawyer] gives up the ghost as a transphobe twisting the First Amendment to mean, in effect, 'Intentionally misgendering you is free, not hate, speech,' a hollow, disingenuous notion echoing willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest predators who weaponize incompetence as our social fabric tears at the seams in this 'Age of Information.'"
"[A]bsent a clear showing of substantial harm to the child, the noncustodial parent retains his or her fundamental right to direct the child's religious upbringing during his or her parenting time."
The defense secretary argues that military retirees like Sen. Mark Kelly are not allowed to say things he unilaterally deems "prejudicial to good order and discipline."
Clive Johnston's conviction marks the first of its kind under buffer zone laws involving speech entirely unrelated to abortion.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche implausibly claims prosecutors can prove Comey "knowingly and willfully" threatened to murder the president.
Around the world, governments are censoring speech with the stated goal of shielding youth from online harms.
The president is not shy about using government power to punish people for saying things that offend him.
The case defies more than half a century of rulings on the “true threat” exception to the First Amendment.
European leaders' warnings of a democratic apocalypse failed to materialize in 2024.
Jay Near was a hateful man whose litigation set a vital precedent for free speech.
So holds an Oregon appellate court.
The term “hate speech” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s legally protected in the U.S.
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