Trial court: "I understand that you have a first amendment privilege, but sometimes the first amendment privilege contravenes certain statutes that are enacted by the State ...." Appellate court: That's "a misunderstanding of the relationship between statutes and constitutions."
"[T]rauma and lived experiences," the newspaper says, "are not open for debate."
As free speech becomes an increasingly important part of the culture war, people won't stop misinterpreting—and outright violating—the First Amendment.
The final report from the January 6 select committee falls short of proving the elements required to convict the former president.
According to the Complaint, "Ashley Guillard promotes herself on Amazon and TikTok as an Internet sleuth that solves high-profile unsolved murders by consulting Tarot cards, and performing other readings, to obtain information about the murders."
The weird judge-invented "commercial speech" exception to our right to free expression breeds strange results in suit against distributors of the 2019 movie Yesterday.
Their suggested replacement for 'Karen' is far more offensive than the term itself.
"Defendants are ORDERED to identify the lawyer responsible for this motion. The lawyer, by January 3, 2023, is ORDERED to submit an explanation of why the lawyer thought this was a justified motion. When I see the explanation, I will consider whether subsequent proceedings are appropriate."
The Second Circuit reverses such a limited sealing order, and sends the case back to the district court for further analysis.
Some conservatives toss “parents’ rights” out the window in a holiday culture war against kids at live shows.
The IODA aims to edit the legal defintion of "obscenity" to allow for the regulation of most pornography. But even if it passes, a nationwide porn ban is unlikely to succeed.
The latest Twitter Files installment shows the FBI paid Twitter millions of dollars to cover the costs of processing the agency's requests. Yikes.
“[I]t is reasonable to expect the person invoking the Court’s jurisdiction to set aside some of his privacy. Many statutes, such as the ADA [...] require a plaintiff to set aside his [] privacy and disclose information that he [] may otherwise wish to keep confidential.”
The employer had apparently threatened to do so as retaliation for the plaintiff's wage-and-hour violation claim.
Demands by lawmakers and government officials for locally produced content may lead to online censorship.
Maybe the FBI has something better to do with its time?
by Prof. Thomas Hochmann (Univ. of Paris Nanterre), 2 J. Free Speech L. 63 (2022).
Property owners are required to get permission from the city, the NFL, and/or the private Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee before displaying temporary advertisements and signs.
Plus: Sen. Mike Lee wants to remove First Amendment protections for porn, IRS doxxes taxpayers, and more...
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live analysis of the internal Twitter documents recently published by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger.
Plus: Justin Amash and Jane Coaston talk about the Libertarian Party, a fatal flaw in anti-vaping studies, and more...
The most disturbing aspect of the “Twitter Files” is the platform’s cozy relationship with federal officials who demanded suppression of speech they considered dangerous.
Plus: The editors briefly celebrate a noteworthy shake-up in the Senate.
"Armory correctly notes the InRange Video and Recoil Article are accessible "to millions of people," as is anything posted publicly on the internet. Nonetheless, Armory fails to show the InRange Video or Recoil Article reached members of the potential jury pool, let alone irreparably tainted them."
Content moderators had "weekly confabs" with law enforcement officials, reports Matt Taibbi.
A podcast conversation on 303 Creative between Joshua Matz and me, hosted by Jeffrey Rosen.
Instead of debating whether the platform has been flooded by bigotry, Elon Musk should tell the congressman to mind his own business.
Among other things, the court concludes that, "given that Plaintiff alleges that his 'personal background as an Arab-American and Muslim' was in part responsible for his lack of a traditional diagnosis of ADHD, his personal background may make him particularly vulnerable to the harms of disclosure."
Twitter employees have indicated that shadow banning—at least by some definitions—is both real and common.
Plaintiff "has alleged nothing suggesting he has any greater basis to fear retaliation than the plaintiffs in most discrimination cases."
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
