Mainstream Political Argument Forbidden "in the Modern Public Square" of Facebook
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."
Sen. Marsha Blackburn's "Biological men have no place in women's sports" post was apparently blocked as "hate speech."
The trial court reasoned: "You guys ... have a spat on Facebook.... Nobody cares about these s[p]ats. Just block them and move on."
Criticism of Grayson (who's now running in the 2022 Florida Senate primary) in his losing 2018 House campaign was based on "articles by independent, reputable sources," and there wasn't clear and convincing evidence that the defendants knew their statements were false or likely false (the so-called "actual malice" standard).
Plus: Twitter defends user anonymity, Oklahoma legislature approves abortion ban, and more...
Massie was the only House member to vote against a resolution demanding social media companies do more to track and suppress antisemitic content.
The student's mother alleged that he had been bullied and the school district had done nothing to protect him; the teacher's aide responded in an online public discussion, saying (among other things) that the student had been doing the bullying; the parents sued.
said Judge Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) about this amicus brief from Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) and Phillip R. Malone of the Juelsgaard I/P and Innovation Clinic (at Stanford).
And The Washington Post's wildly one-sided account of Jankowicz's fall was an exercise in government PR.
The Supreme Court split on this 4-4 in 1982, and the matter remains unsettled.
In response to the Buffalo massacre, Gov. Kathy Hochul invoked a hoary analogy to justify censorship.
So holds a federal district court today; striking down a Tennessee statute.
A content-neutral ban on all residential picketing would be constitutional; but the "intent to harass or disturb" limitation may make the law unconstitutional or ineffective.
Plus: The editors each point out one key disagreement they have with one another.
The law forces social media firms to host and promote speech they oppose, and would set a dangerous precedent if upheld by the courts.
A federal judge ruled Monday that North Carolina bureaucrats violated the Constitution when they tried to ban a Flying Dog beer over a possible penis on the label.
"It's all induced by the internet," she said.
but that she received from the lawyers for the man accused of killing him.
So the Michigan Court of Appeals held Thursday, in a case brought by the former head women's gymnastics coach at Central Michigan University.
"If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you," the company tells employees.
The account posted items such as (in mid-2020), "ASU: No More Social Distancing. No More Masks. It Is Time to Party!"
The U.S. Polo Association investigation exonerated the plaintiff, but the plaintiff still sued the USPA for libel.
A "disinformation" board sounds like something from a dystopian novel.
of South Africa and the European Court of Human Rights."
Plus: A democratic socialist running for office is caught up in a MeToo witch hunt, inflation woes continue, and more...
held to be vague and therefore unenforceable.
Comparing Elon Musk and Barack Obama underscores why entrepreneurs, not politicians, are the more effective agents of social change.
So a federal judge held yesterday.
Not even under an anti-SLAPP statute—rather, under a statute allowing sanctions for "frivolous conduct in filing civil claims."
"Netflix alleges that Tyler County’s District Attorney, Lucas Babin, is 'abusing his office' through a 'singular and bad-faith effort' to maliciously prosecute Netflix in violation of the United States Constitution and in retaliation against Netflix for exercising its First Amendment rights."
So Georgia Administrative Law Judge Charles R. Beaudrot ruled yesterday.
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