"[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.
Your donations help us keep the culture of free speech alive.
Is it libelous to (1) accuse him of "antisemitism" and (2) accuse him (incorrectly) of having painted a swastika?
A university president provides a helpful explanation of the difference.
So holds a federal court (correctly, I think), considering restrictions that were prompted by Texas Governor Abbott's General Order GA-44.
Both presidential candidates (and their running mates) seem confused about the constraints imposed by the First Amendment.
(depending on whether the preacher also violated content-neutral conduct restrictions).
During Tuesday's debate, Tim Walz fumbled a key moment by misunderstanding the First Amendment
as a means of stopping an anti-Israel "vigil" organized by the UMD chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The survey of over 50,000 students also found that 37 percent of students said it was "sometimes" or "always" acceptable to shout down a speaker, up from 31 percent last year.
The chaplain's post "discuss[ed] 'how God designed each person as male or female, and that sex is immutable'" and "stated it is unfair to allow males to compete in women's sports."
The mandate required platforms to, among other things, report to the state "how the terms of service define and address (a) hate speech or racism; (b) extremism or radicalization; (c) disinformation or misinformation; (d) harassment; and (e) foreign political interference, as well as statistics on content that was flagged by the social media company as belonging to any of the categories."
"The Community Guidelines' prohibitions of, inter alia, 'homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, ableism, racism, or any other forms of oppressive beliefs or behaviors,' 'name-calling,' and 'disrespect' are prohibitions against ideas that offend, and therefore discriminate on the basis of viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment."
"Evidently, one out of every two Americans wishes they had fewer civil liberties," said one researcher. "This is a dictator's fantasy."
You don't promote acceptance by locking people up for victimless crimes.
Officials suspend efforts to force X to suppress the world’s access to video of a crime.
Yes, when the restriction is being imposed by the government.
Eric Levitz argues that the left should take a stand against censorship—for practical rather than principled reasons.
A Jewish journal argues the problem is not the Act's definition of antisemitism, but the larger anti-speech bureaucratic edifice.
Calls from the left and right to mimic European speech laws bring the U.S. to a crossroads between robust First Amendment protections and rising regulation.
Plus: Mnuchin's TikTok folly, Trump's April Fools' joke, Andy Warhol's muse, and more...
I'm against it, whomever it's coming from.
“Even open democracies have implemented restrictive measures,” finds a global report.
and also because private clubs generally have broad discretion in interpreting their internal rules.
Restricting speech about the world's most pressing problems does not make them go away, nor does it settle any disputes.
Liz Magill and two other university leaders provoked bipartisan outrage by defending freedom of expression on campus.
Younger Americans, in particular, appear to support calls for Palestinian liberation, but do they understand what a common slogan means?
"And in (partial) defense of Harvard President Claudine Gay's controversial congressional testimony."
"Conservatives like Rep. Elise Stefanik should ask themselves: Do you honestly believe this [proposed new rule against "calls for genocide"] won't be weaponized to ban an Israeli cabinet official from speaking at Penn? An Israeli Defense Force soldier?"
"Double standards are frustrating, but we should address them by demanding free speech be protected consistently — not by expanding the calls for censorship."
Plus: Repealing tobacco bans, UN pointlessness, Substack's "Nazi problem," and more…
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