Let Massholes Be Massholes, Says Bay State's High Court
Criticism of public officials doesn't have to be polite, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confirmed.
Criticism of public officials doesn't have to be polite, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court confirmed.
The trade association says the overbroad and vague A.B. 2273 places unconstitutional burdens on speech.
"It's very easy for politicians to legislate freedom away," says Northwood University's Kristin Tokarev. "But it's incredibly hard to get back."
State legislators "have independent agency to do things. I don't control every single bill that has been filed," said DeSantis on Tuesday.
Plus: U.S. special forces seeks “next generation” deepfake tech, the economic cost of the PRO Act, and more…
All the more reason to frequently Google your own name!
Contrary to the Supreme Court's First Amendment precedents, Donald Trump thinks harsh criticism of the president should be actionable.
Michael Friend was arrested in 2018 for holding a sign that read "Cops Ahead" near a police checkpoint. That arrest violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Plus: The SAFE TECH Act, Reason talks to young conservatives at CPAC, and more...
The latest bid to amend Section 230 would threaten free speech and creators' ability to monetize content while also subjecting tech companies to a flood of frivolous lawsuits.
A senator, a state attorney general, and a former congressman excoriated the law while getting much of it wrong.
Def Noodles v. Keemstar.
Although Rupert Murdoch admits that Lou Dobbs and other hosts "endorsed" the "stolen election" narrative, Fox's lawyers insist that is not true.
A new survey from FIRE reveals rampant illiberalism and self-censorship among young faculty.
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
and thus not being able to safely participate in BDSM activities (presumably on the dominant side)?
Right now, Hongkongers have lost their avenues to speak because of the national security law imposed by the new government.
The Court’s decisions in Gonzalez and subsequent cases could lead to impossible, incompatible consequences.
Florida's H.B. 999 claims to support "viewpoint diversity" and "intellectual rigor." It does just the opposite.
It’s already illegal to expose minors to obscenity, so what is this bill really for?
by Prof. Peter de Marneffe (Ariz. State).
"The current law is that parents have a right to direct the education of their child,'' said the bill's sponsor. "And this is a parents' rights state.''
"The bill is an aggressive and blatantly unconstitutional attempt to rewrite defamation law in a manner that protects the powerful from criticism by journalists and the public," said one attorney.
The mystery writer and cultural critic is an outspoken defender of free thinking and cultural appropriation.
Plus: The U.S. Supreme Court considers another internet free speech case, the Department of Transportation pushes expensive new rail regs, and more...
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion of the decentralized protocol Nostr with NVK, Damus app creator Will Casarin, Nick Gillespie, and Zach Weissmueller.
The statute required no-boycott-of-Israel terms in Arkansas government contracts; the Eighth Circuit had held that the law doesn't violate the First Amendment.
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