Most respondents, especially millennials, favored viewpoint-based censorship, suppression of "hurtful or offensive" speech in certain contexts, and legal penalties for wayward news organizations.
I have an op-ed about this today in the N.Y. Daily News.
The case vividly illustrates how hate crime laws punish people for the views they express.
That's what flyers posted in Winchester (Massachusetts) say.
The move would violate the First Amendment.
Plus: 8chan called before Congress, data privacy bill hits a snag, and more...
Companies should forced neither to help spread offensive speech nor to suppress it.
Plus: the trouble with "national conservatism," the decline of the mortgage interest deduction, and more...
Donald Trump is far from the only person who doesn't understand the Bill of Rights.
Resist when politicians declare that speech (even radical speech) is a “threat to our democracy.”
Seems like a pretty clear First Amendment violation, even if the name is viewed as an offensive reference to illegal aliens (which the corporate owners apparently don't intend).
That's the legal theory behind a case just filed by prosecutors in Ohio.
Will a thirst to punish Silicon Valley destroy our liberty?
We make a mistake when we think outliers somehow represent who we are as a country.
Please share it widely -- there will be at least nine more in the upcoming months.
Episode 2 of Free Speech Rules by UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh
What constitutes a hate group isn't objective or easily defined, and Portland's resolution makes no attempt to clarify.
Author and sex worker Maggie McNeill was suspended from Twitter Tuesday for a hyperbolic comment about burning the White House down.
"[SUNY] Purchase College student Gunnar Hassard was arraigned in Harrison Town Court for Aggravated Harassment in the First Degree, a class E felony, for hanging posters with Nazi symbolism in areas of the campus."
What should the culture of free speech, free expression, and ownership look like on our social media platforms?
The latest in the Brummer v. Wey (TheBlot) litigation, brought by Prof. Christopher Brummer, a former Obama nominee for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Social media can shame them and the school can punish them, but the police shouldn't intervene.
Anti-hate speech laws have gone too far.
Plus: Brazil's worrisome new president, the long-tail of the housing crisis, and Brett Kavanaugh's replacement
More than a year later, an arbitrator held the discipline was largely (though not entirely) improper.
Friday, a federal district judge issued an injunction against the ban.
Will it stop toxic behavior or just encourage more demands for censorship?
The nation that gave the world John Milton and his cry for the "liberty to utter" is now at the forefront of shutting speech down.
Bill also calls for holding forum moderators legally liable for extreme speech.
Reason's Robby Soave and Mike Riggs debate whether Mark Zuckerberg's should de-platform haters such as Alex Jones and Infowars to improve the user experience.
Silencing hate isn't the same thing as squelching it.
That's what Illinois prosecutors are trying to do by charging Timothy Trybus with hate crimes for objecting to a woman's Puerto Rican flag shirt.
The American Library Association is facing criticism for reaffirming First Amendment rights.
The social media site has a difficult time telling the difference between white nationalist ravings and the writing of Thomas Jefferson.
Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the difficulties and importance of free speech.
When government has the power to censor, ultimately it will look for excuses to suppress opposition.
The company's new policy is already giving it problems.
A well-intentioned new policy threatens the violent, angry music we know and love.
Court feels "menaced" by a pug.
Why all Americans should be thankful for the First Amendment
