The TAKE IT DOWN Act's Good Intentions Don't Make Up for Its Bad Policy
Congress just approved a new online censorship scheme under the auspices of thwarting revenge porn and AI-generated "nonconsensual intimate visual depictions."
Congress just approved a new online censorship scheme under the auspices of thwarting revenge porn and AI-generated "nonconsensual intimate visual depictions."
Please feel free to forward this to anyone you think might be interested.
The administration's lawyers claim that this was justified by Khalil's likelihood of escape.
The federal judge rightly rejects the request.
Live by your own rule, Ruhle!
Two of his targets are seeking permanent injunctions against the president's blatantly unconstitutional executive orders.
To remain independent, institutions of higher education should end their reliance on taxpayer money.
The president has launched a multifaceted crusade against speech that offends him.
The administration's demands extend far beyond its avowed concern about antisemitism and enforcement of "civil rights laws."
The president's lawyers also conflate fraud with defamation, misconstrue the commercial speech doctrine, and assert that false speech is not constitutionally protected.
"After receiving their surrogate baby, the couple purportedly performed an at-home DNA test 'which showed that [the would-be father] was in no way related to the baby.'"
Support for suppressing "violent content" has also dropped.
"This Court should not announce an opt-out right for religious objectors under the Free Exercise Clause that its precedents would foreclose for students objecting to public-school curricula under the Free Speech Clause."
The secretary of state, who aims to "liberate American speech," nevertheless wants to deport U.S. residents for expressing opinions that offend him.
Just a quarter of respondents said they favored deporting students for "expressing pro-Palestine views."
Harvard's law faculty previously criticized the Obama administration's assault on norms of free speech and due process.
But one of the pro-pseudonymity decisions on which the court relies (which also involved a lawsuit alleging anti-Semitic behavior) was actually reversed two weeks ago.
The bill risks "punishing parents simply for disagreeing with the state's preferred views on gender," Aaron Terr, a First Amendment attorney, tells Reason.
Richard Nixon infamously drafted an "enemies list" of people he wanted to go after. At least Trump conducts his corruption out in the open.
In Colombia, a court claims the answer is yes. Could that happen here?
"I said now that they're banning it, I want to join, just because they're telling me I can't," the Kentucky senator tells Reason.
It's a good step. But the schools should also file their own lawsuit challenging this awful policy.
The Associated Press’s legal victory highlights the limited power presidents and the press have over the creative destruction and spontaneous order of our language.
An immigration judge's decision reinforces the constitutional argument against the law that the secretary of state is invoking.
The pro-censorship post was quite the Freudian slip from the Trump administration.
"However legitimate [plaintiff's] concerns, a party's wealth alone is not a legitimate reason to restrict the right of public access."
Even if Laredo cops punished Priscilla Villarreal for constitutionally protected speech, the appeals court says, they would be protected by qualified immunity.
The Sunshine State is considering a bill that would expand protections for law enforcement officers who use deadly force or cause great bodily harm.
The former editor in chief of the South China Morning Post discusses his book on Jimmy Lai, who is currently on trial in Hong Kong for having the audacity to stand up to the government.
"Universities were bending over for federal funds long before Trump," writes Laura Kipnis.
A new global survey reveals a stark decline in Americans' support for free speech as the Trump administration tightens its grip on expression.