'Hamstringing the Government': A Viral Narrative Distorts Ketanji Brown Jackson's Understanding of Free Speech
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
Diosdado Cabello, Nicolás Maduro's right-hand man, is threatening retribution against the satirical website.
Justice Jackson, like Justice Breyer (whom she replaced and for whom she clerked), seems to be considering an approach that is more embracing of speech restrictions that she views as especially urgent—including perhaps ones that departs from precedents such as the Pentagon Papers case.
The government can't block viewpoints it condemns from its own property that has been opened to publicspeech. Should there be limits on government systematically and substantially encouraging private entities to block the same viewpoints from their property—which may be much more important to public debate than the government property where speech remains free?
Such speech can be found to be "impermissible harassment," the court says, partly because "deference to schoolteachers is especially appropriate today, where, increasingly, what is harmful or innocent speech is in the eye of the beholder."
The government is entitled to try to persuade social media to take down posts, but not to coerce them to do so.
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.
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