Court Rejects Idea Theft / "Hot News" Claim by Occasional Fox Guest Against Fox
Bonus: Calling someone a "nut" isn't libel.
Bonus: Calling someone a "nut" isn't libel.
The Supreme Court justice seemed willing to invalidate the federal law on First Amendment grounds.
Today, TikTok. Tomorrow, who knows?
Which sentence in this podcast was generated using A.I.?
Books by the acclaimed mystery author have been edited, ostensibly to comport with modern sensibilities.
[An excerpt from my forthcoming article on "Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Outputs."]
"I will not appear to condone the diminishment of any group at the expense of impertinent gestures toward another group for any reason, even when the law of the land appears to require it," he wrote.
[UPDATE: I've added excerpts from a Slate interview with the school's Board Chair, who ended up commenting on the story after all; his view is that the firing stemmed only from the failure to alert parents to the upcoming material.]
TikTok's CEO served as little more than a punching bag for lawmakers with a dizzying array of big tech grievances.
who allegedly accused it of being an agent of the Israeli government and "refer[red] to individuals associated with the Academy as pigs and use[d] porcine imagery to insult those individuals."
Plus: did the editors sing Happy Birthday to Adam Smith?
Plus: did the editors sing Happy Birthday to Adam Smith?
Plus: Police sue Afroman for using footage from raid, California bill could ban popular junk foods, and more...
A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.
My Friday post erroneously stated that I got the bogus results from ChatGPT-4; it turns out they were from ChatGPT-3.5—but ChatGPT-4 does also yield similarly made-up results.
The legal challenge to censorship by proxy highlights covert government manipulation of online speech.
upholds the ban on landlords' taking adverse action based on that information.
Plus: A listener asks the editors if the nation is indeed unraveling or if she is just one of "The Olds" now.
The 11th Circuit panel refused to lift an injunction against the law.
The latest Twitter Files shows a partnership between Stanford University researchers and government-funded organizations encouraged social media companies to police true information.
[UPDATE: This article originally said this what ChatGPT-4 doing this, which was my error. But, as I note below in an UPDATE, ChatGPT-4 also erroneously reports supposed criminal convictions and sentences, complete with made-up quotes.]
"Professors are not mouthpieces for the government," says FIRE's Joe Cohn. "For decades, the Supreme Court of the United States has defended professors' academic freedom from governmental intrusion."
Americans shouldn't have to fight to the death to defend their foes' right to speak, but they should at least stop trying to censor, shame, shun and destroy each other.
Understanding what’s at stake in United States v. Hansen
It may be too late for Stanford Law School, but it's not too late for other institutions of higher learning.
The bill now bans a battery of poorly-defined "Critical Theory" concepts, and prevents schools from funding programs that promote "diversity, equity, and inclusion."
The bill is overbroad and could have unintended consequences.
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