"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."
"[T]he District wants to be able to use government resources to collect and utilize these e-mail addresses to promote and advance the particular 'community outreach' issues and positions of District (government) leaders while denying others in the community the opportunity to utilize the e-mail addresses to share differing viewpoints."
by Jacob Mchangama (Justitia), Heini Skorini (Univ. of Faroe Islands) & Mathias Meier (Justitia).
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks