"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…
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
Democrats and Republicans are united in thinking their political agendas trump the First Amendment.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression responds.
Even content creators outside of New York would feel its effects.
"For the most part, the American Civil Liberties Union, Young Americans for Freedom, and the Babylon Bee don't see eye to eye."
Plus: The doubling of the deficit, young Americans souring on college, and more...
A federal judge compared Waylon Bailey’s Facebook jest to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre."
The paper worries that "social media companies are receding from their role as watchdogs against political misinformation."
Langford had been in the news for joining a sorority, which has caused a good deal of controversy at the University of Wyoming.
can go forward, rules a federal judge, denying Cleveland State University's motion to dismiss.
"Disinformation" researchers alarmed by the injunction against government meddling with social media content admire legal regimes that allow broad speech restrictions.
notwithstanding the First Amendment.
At this rate, the Southern Poverty Law Center's notorious hate map might eventually describe everyone as an extremist.
Prosecutors and police had read the law, which restricts "advertisements," as broadly banning racial slurs; the Connecticut court read it, as written, to restrict only commercial advertisements.
"Today's decision is a victory for the First Amendment that should be celebrated by everyone who hopes to see the internet continue as a place where even difficult and contentious issues can be debated and discussed freely," said one attorney.
Plus: Government regulation of speech is on trial, biohackers flock to experimental charter city in Honduras, and more…
At the World Economic Forum, Brian Stelter and panelists discuss why everything is Facebook's fault.
A defendant had argued that she could allow Black Lives Matters posters but forbid MAGA hats on the theory that, "While the Black Lives Matter poster is a symbol of cultural acceptance and inclusivity ... Mr. Dodge's MAGA hat is a symbol commonly associated with white supremacy and other anti-immigrant sentiments." No, says a Ninth Circuit panel.
“[G]overnment officials ... should not be unduly constrained in their attempts to regulate hate speech for the purpose of protecting the intended targets of said speech. This may require some refining of the Supreme Court’s prior guidance in its precedents.... For example, the Court could consider modifying the Brandenburg test to require only a probable and emerging threat of violence rather than imminent lawless action as a result of speech in order to regulate it.”
“Students ... remain free to express offensive and other unpopular viewpoints [at least outside school], but that does not include a license to disseminate severely harassing invective targeted at particular classmates in a manner that is readily and foreseeably transmissible to those students.”
"[T]rauma and lived experiences," the newspaper says, "are not open for debate."
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live analysis of the internal Twitter documents recently published by Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and Michael Shellenberger.
The most disturbing aspect of the “Twitter Files” is the platform’s cozy relationship with federal officials who demanded suppression of speech they considered dangerous.
Instead of debating whether the platform has been flooded by bigotry, Elon Musk should tell the congressman to mind his own business.
by Jacob Mchangama (Justitia), Heini Skorini (Univ. of Faroe Islands) & Mathias Meier (Justitia).
"The state of New York can't turn bloggers into Big Brother, but it's trying to do just that," said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
