So…Is TikTok Really Getting Banned?
The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a ban on the app, but many creators aren't so sure.
The Supreme Court appears poised to uphold a ban on the app, but many creators aren't so sure.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a Texas case that could have major ramifications across the country—including, perhaps, the end of anonymity online.
Anyone discussing free speech should at least try to get this right.
featuring Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat (Yeshiva), Profs. Gregory Dickinson (Nebraska), Prof. Christina Mulligan (Brooklyn), Dhruva Krishna (Kirkland & Ellis), and me.
My "lived experience" at Georgetown gave me a unique perspective on the higher-ed crisis.
The right result, I think, but I don't think the court's reasoning is quite right.
How a 1949 Supreme Court dissent gave birth to a meme that subverts free speech and civil liberties
Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized "the government's attempt to lodge secret evidence in this case." Still, things look grim for the app.
Despite some notable wins, the president-elect's overall track record shows he cannot count on a conservative Supreme Court to side with him.
wife's concern "about public embarrassment and potential harm to Decedent's surviving children."
"[P]laintiffs ... allege[] that ... [Fox Corp.] 'actively participated in, directed, and controlled the publication' of the above defamatory statements composed and broadcast by the other defendants."
It’s the latest company to step back from dangerous alliances with political factions.
"'Fact-checkers' as the high priests of journalism had a political beginning at Facebook — and have met a political end."
Generally, when defendants made factual accusations based on what they said was personal knowledge, it's enough that plaintiff swear the statements are false, so it can be inferred that they are knowingly false. If that happens, it's usually up to the jury to decide who's telling the truth.
The lawsuit is brought by Jacki Pick against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, based on statement in Raffensperger's book, Integrity Counts.
The president-elect frivolously claims that J. Ann Selzer and The Des Moines Register owe him damages because of an erroneous preelection poll.
"The fact-checkers have just been too politically biased," says the Meta CEO.
can proceed (under the First Amendment and under parental constitutional rights law), the court says, though there's no actual decision on whether the plaintiffs (parents and teachers) will prevail.
From Jimmy Carter to Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to John Kerry, politicians have led the abandonment of free speech.
Not under California law, a court says. (Federal law and the law in other states may be different.)
"Speaking from a balcony isn't a crime," the man's lawyer says. "And just because a cop was offended because of some language doesn't give him the power to arrest you."
"As a result of Plaintiffs' scattered pleading, any serious allegations of actionable discrimination are buried as needles within a haystack of distraction."
Courts block laws regulating algorithms and online porn.
An interesting window into how courts sometimes think about such requests; this decision turned heavily on the fact that plaintiff had already gotten a state court harassment restraining order against the defendant.
It doesn't always work, but it worked on the facts of this case.
Portions of a law, struck down last week, would have subjected individuals to misdemeanor charges for providing "harmful" materials to minors.
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