The losing party on this had argued, "[The other party's lawyer] gives up the ghost as a transphobe twisting the First Amendment to mean, in effect, 'Intentionally misgendering you is free, not hate, speech,' a hollow, disingenuous notion echoing willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest predators who weaponize incompetence as our social fabric tears at the seams in this 'Age of Information.'"
The term “hate speech” gets thrown around a lot, but it’s legally protected in the U.S.
"The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence," said acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
"[S]he was told that a Mammy doll which depicts slavery was in the garage of the building where they worked.... [W]hen she saw the doll she was overcome with emotions because it was so humiliating.... [S]he could not control her emotions and could not think clearly."
More than eight decades ago, the Supreme Court invented a vague First Amendment exception that would-be censors continue to invoke.
Ten Frenchmen were given fines, jail time, and social media bans for accusing their first lady of being a pedophilic gay man.
Progressive censors failed to suppress our political demons. It's finally time to confront them.
Progressive censors failed to suppress our political demons. It's finally time to confront them.
"Drops in confidence across all political parties contributed to the record-levels of pessimism," writes the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
So argues a concurring opinion in today's Second Circuit decision in Leroy v. Livingston Manor Central School Dist., also speaking about speech that "callously cheer[s] on or condone[s]" "police brutality, ... religiously-motivated attacks on their houses of worship, sexual or gender-based violence, or any other type of targeted state or private violence."
So holds the Second Circuit: "Tying a student speaker's constitutional right to free expression solely to the reaction that speech garners from upset or angry listeners cannot be squared with [First Amendment] principles."
It is forthcoming in Academic Freedom in the Era of Trump, (Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone, eds., Oxford University Press).
Another entry into the "algorithms are magic" school of imposing liability on tech companies.
Civil liberties attorney Jenin Younes recounts her role in Murthy v. Missouri, her opposition to pandemic mandates, and why she believes Trump poses an even greater threat to free speech than Biden.
Rand Paul concurs that the threats preceding the comedian's suspension were "absolutely inappropriate" because the agency has "no business weighing in on this."
The attorney general is now getting called out by fellow conservatives.
Plus: Trump says he "may let [TikTok] die," the SoHo Forum debates paying for sex, the administration calls birth control "abortifacients," and more...
Freedom of speech cannot reliably protect conservatives unless it also protects people they despise.
The campus' settlement with the federal government is bound to create free speech headaches.
High school student gets correction of school records, $20K, and public apology for "mischaracterization of racial bias."
But speech sharply critical of Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, and of Sharia (and thus perhaps of traditionalist Islam) had been found, by the same commission, to be unethical.
Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman joins Nick Gillespie to discuss toxic identity politics, the rise of grievance-based thinking, and why true self-actualization requires moving beyond victimhood.
Speech codes intended to battle misinformation are instead empowering the government to be the arbiter of truth.
America stands alone in valuing and protecting free speech.
The secretary of state, who aims to "liberate American speech," nevertheless wants to deport U.S. residents for expressing opinions that offend him.
A new global survey reveals a stark decline in Americans' support for free speech as the Trump administration tightens its grip on expression.
"[I]n seeking to hold Cooper Union liable for [students'] expression, [plaintiff] cannot help but say the quiet part loud: sweeping otherwise-protected political expression into the hostility analysis will create pressure on institutions 'to suppress speech to ensure compliance with Title VI,' causing 'regulated entities to adopt restrictive policies in an effort to avoid liability' for a hostile environment."
Chairman Andrew Ferguson’s assault on "Big Tech censorship" aims to override editorial decisions protected by the First Amendment.
By the end of 2025, as many as 100 million Americans could live in a state where they can be reported for protected expression.
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