A federal court held that Prince was a public figure, and hadn't offered enough plausible allegations that the defendants knew the statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" showing).
The podcast is a debate between legal scholar Brad Smith and myself.
Students for Life at George Mason University claims that another student organization defamed the group by criticizing its event that compared abortion to slavery and segregation.
"Plaintiff has sought to avail herself of the protections of anonymity (without prior Court order), all the while single-handedly precluding the Named Defendant from the ability to avail himself of similar protections."
A First Amendment case prompts The Onion to explain how parody works.
The world’s politicians offer a friendly reception to attacks on free speech.
How, if at all, should we try to be nice in an inherently not-nice occupation?
My argument: "Petitioner Jane Doe—a frequent unsuccessful litigant—is asking this Court to impose unconstitutional prior restraint to prevent a law professor from writing about important, publicly available cases about pseudonymity."
The policy, released this week, places unconstitutional prohibitions on faculty speech.
The professor, Joseph Michael Phillips, had spoken about Confederate memorials, race relations, a shooting, and masks.
"Upon careful review, we determined this video is not violative of our Community Guidelines and have reinstated it," said a YouTube spokesperson.
The 6th Circuit ruled that qualified immunity prevented Anthony Novak from vindicating his First Amendment rights.
An appeal a day late (even if not a dollar short). [UPDATE: But there may be a lifesaving treatment!]
Justice Scalia, to the rescue.
I think the letter's analysis as to contraceptives is inconsistent with the statutes, and with a binding Supreme Court precedent.
Who cares if it’s legal if it generates politically advantageous outrage and attention?
Reddit users are protesting Texas' H.B. 20, which forces social media platforms to host speech they find objectionable.
Haarlem lawmakers claim the ban will help fight climate change.
A crackdown on insults, hate speech, and misinformation punishes dissenters who express themselves in ways that offend government officials.
The need for a comprehensive strategy addressing election misinformation.
The relative narrowness of the law, the court concludes, distinguishes the law from the one struck down in Packingham v. North Carolina.
Plus: Student drag shows are protected speech, a bank CEO rebuffs Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and more...
First Amendment implications for state laws targeting election speech.
Even though it might cause pearl-clutching, there is nothing obscene about drag shows.
A First Amendment framework for analyzing restrictions on election-related speech.
Democrats and Republicans both demand solutions that are inconsistent with the First Amendment.
An overview of state efforts to combat election misinformation.
Although the federal government has largely stayed out of regulating the content of election-related speech, the states have been surprisingly active in passing laws that prohibit false statements associated with elections.
Jimmy Wales talks about why his online encyclopedia works, how to improve social media, and why Section 230 isn't the real problem with the internet.
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