The order “could encompass speech ... that [the mother] believe[s] valid and substantiated even if CPS ultimately determines that [it is] not.”
when the school generally allows other non-election-related but still political statements to be read, and is allowing an election-related pro-abortion-rights student walkout.
If the bird site's new owner wants to protect free speech, he should focus on resisting government requests to remove content.
No one is confused about whether Tofurky is turkey.
Collin College fired Suzanne Jones in 2021, after she voiced support for union activity and the removal of Confederate monuments.
Priscilla Villarreal found herself in a jail cell for publishing two routine stories. A federal court still can't decide what to do about that.
Plus: Congress remains too cautious about marijuana, myths about independent contractors, and more...
The crucial protector of internet speech might have some cracks in its armor.
The law authorizes regulators to discipline physicians who deviate from the "contemporary scientific consensus."
On Tuesday, the senator erroneously claimed that "free speech does not include spreading misinformation."
Plus: The emptiness of Democrats' pro-democracy rhetoric, the real reason Social Security checks are getting bigger, and more...
Livestream with Nick Gillespie, Robby Soave, and Zach Weissmueller
So holds the Ninth Circuit; Hamilton plays a major role.
The journalist and comedian makes the case that "new puritans" espousing the religion of social justice have captured the Western world.
Andrew Doyle on the "new puritans" and their godawful religion of social justice.
The music industry objects to the use of rap lyrics by prosecutors.
The two fake news organizations want the Supreme Court to review the case of a man who was arrested for making fun of the police.
Plus: Hate speech is free speech, tax gap is stable, and more...
Plus: For Halloween, the editors describe what scares them most about politics and government right now.
The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI regularly report misinformation and disinformation to tech companies for potential removal.
A federal judge suggested that plaintiffs can sue as John Does only to the extent that identifying them would also identify nonparties who want to remain anonymous (such as the students who accused the plaintiffs of sexual misconduct).
An interesting echo, I think, of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982).
[NOTE: There is nothing parodic or facetious about any item in this post; it is entirely accurate. No, seriously, it is. Really, I mean it, really.]
Plus: Charlottesville cracks down on city employee speech, judge dismisses "blackout challenge" lawsuit against TikTok, and more...
On Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito repeated the common myth that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech.
[UPDATE: I've added comments from plaintiff's lawyer.]
"Journalism and investigative reporting have long served a critical role in our society. But journalism and investigative reporting do not require illegal conduct."
The facts are complicated, and involve a good deal more than just disagreement as to gender identity; but it seems to me like an important controversy.
A court may impose restrictions on redistribution of material obtained through court-ordered discovery (as opposed to obtained through other means)—though if the depositions are quoted in court filings or played in court, the material used would "become part of the public record, creating a presumption of public access."
"The defendants' [reliance] on ... source materials, including an official congressional report, articles in well-known newspapers and magazines, and police reports ... '... alone ... defeat[s] any claim of actual malice.'"
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