The Hazards of Holding YouTube Liable for Promoting Terrorism
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential costs of making it easier to sue social media platforms over user-generated content.
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential costs of making it easier to sue social media platforms over user-generated content.
Tech firm operators may face criminal charges if children who use their platforms encounter too much “harmful content.”
A broader perspective on the Hamline controversy.
There's a good reason why algorithms are still protected by Section 230.
but the Michigan Court of Appeals reverses.
"This anti-free speech, anti-intellectual, anti-common-sense action deserves all the scorn it can get," says Roy Thomas, former editor in chief of Marvel Comics.
Plus: Lab-grown meat, the allure of raw milk, and more...
Researchers: Moscow’s social media meddling had little impact on the 2016 election.
The proposed fellow would have been Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, and apparently a highly prominent expert on the subject.
Plus: House votes to rescind IRS funding, the FDA is putting unnecessary strings on pharmacies filling abortion pill prescriptions, and more...
The internal company documents offer a behind-the-scenes glimpse at how the federal agencies distorted the public debate on one of the world's largest social media platforms.
New mechanisms to threaten liberty are brought to bear on those who need the government's permission to do their jobs.
This is in Missouri's and Louisiana's suit alleging various government officials "are infringing the First Amendment by coercing social media platforms to censor speech."
The same would apply for other speech or political association, because "political affiliation [was] an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved."
"If Hamline won't listen to free speech advocates or faculty across the country, they'll have to listen to their accreditor," said FIRE attorney Alex Morey, who filed the complaint.
"When it comes to problems happening in America, [the NBA is] the first organization saying, 'This is wrong,'" says the former professional basketball player. But then they're silent for victims of torture.
Plus: Would Adam Smith be a libertarian if he were alive today?
We'll give you an answer within 14 days, and we can publish them within several weeks, if you'd like.
An interesting illustration of the defamation per se / per quod distinction, recognized in some states.
The company's broad definition of "misleading information" and its deference to authority invited censorship by proxy.
People in power lean on private businesses to impose authoritarian policies forbidden to the government.
Standing with blank pages in hand, the protesters' goal is to make manifest the implied violence that authoritarian states use to keep order.
This week, a clip of Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin claiming that speech that espouses "hate" and "violence" is not protected by the First Amendment made the rounds on Twitter, sparking sharp backlash.
"On Hamline University's shocking imposition of narrow religious orthodoxy in the classroom."
It is not a workplace "disruption" that co-workers objected to a MAGA hat
The law bans doctors from providing "treatment or advice" "to a patient" "related to COVID-19" when that treatment or advice includes (1) "false information" (2) "that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus" (3) "contrary to the standard of care." The law regulates only speech to patients, not to the public at large.
A defendant had argued that she could allow Black Lives Matters posters but forbid MAGA hats on the theory that, "While the Black Lives Matter poster is a symbol of cultural acceptance and inclusivity ... Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat is a symbol commonly associated with white supremacy and other anti-immigrant sentiments." No, says a Ninth Circuit panel.
“[G]overnment officials ... should not be unduly constrained in their attempts to regulate hate speech for the purpose of protecting the intended targets of said speech. This may require some refining of the Supreme Court’s prior guidance in its precedents.... For example, the Court could consider modifying the Brandenburg test to require only a probable and emerging threat of violence rather than imminent lawless action as a result of speech in order to regulate it.”
“Students ... remain free to express offensive and other unpopular viewpoints [at least outside school], but that does not include a license to disseminate severely harassing invective targeted at particular classmates in a manner that is readily and foreseeably transmissible to those students.”
"It's stories and songs and films cut apart and written over, leaving no trace and no remnant of whatever used to be," writes novelist and cultural critic Kat Rosenfield.
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