Republicans Mull Shutting Down the Government Over Vaccine Mandate Funding
Plus: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in landmark abortion case, supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages are holding back economic growth, and more...
Plus: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in landmark abortion case, supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages are holding back economic growth, and more...
The law is unconstitutional as written—but it has also been used by prosecutors far beyond its specific terms.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
My testimony today before a House Subcommittee on Communications & Technology hearing on proposed revisions to § 230.
The justices may find it difficult to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban without overturning Roe v. Wade.
The oft-heard argument that something isn't "written in the Constitution" is not as compelling as it might seem. Sometimes, it's outright false.
"Given the charged atmosphere concerning vaccinations and vaccine mandates, and for the other reasons discussed above, the Court is persuaded that this is the rare case where a party should be permitted to proceed pseudonymously."
It's true that some users spread lies on social media. But this can’t be solved by partisan “fact-checking."
The "viability" rule is arbitrary. So are the alternatives.
It's with Profs. Jack Balkin (Yale), Daphne Keller (Stanford), and Mark Lemley (Stanford), moderated by Jane Bambauer (Arizona).
Despite such magazines being widely and lawfully used, and with the ban having been tossed out by other courts and court panels, the 9th Circuit thinks the ban does not violate the Second Amendment
The decision is at odds with rulings by some other federal courts, and could end up setting an important precedent.
An important and interesting question, arising here as to Title IX, free speech, and due process, but relevant more generally as well (and now pending before the Supreme Court).
Even when you're not wearing it.
A federal court wasn't having it.
The argument made by Finnis, George, Hammer and others, that abortion is unconstitutional is not supported by text or history.
Eric Adams thinks he can give the police more power to hunt for guns without making innocent minority men the inevitable target.
The site's long-serving boss might be more committed to free speech than his successor, Parag Agrawal.
Plus: Los Angeles will start fining businesses that don't enforce the city's vaccine passport system, Disney yanks a China-critical Simpsons episode, and more...
A school board official told said "students would not participate in a book-club event scheduled for February with Nadia Murad, a Nobel Prize-winner and activist," because "Ms. Murad’s book, 'The Last Girl: My Story of Captivity, and My Fight Against the Islamic State,' would foster Islamophobia."
The IRS' track record suggests that beefed up enforcement will also mean more trampling of Americans' due process rights.
The jury rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
Did you think Kyle Rittenhouse's endorsement of Black Lives Matter was odd? Think of all the unusual stuff you've forgotten.
Some are using Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal to argue for harsher laws and punishments. Andrew Coffee IV's case is a study in why that's an awful idea.
Florida passed a law to stop big tech “censorship.” But the law itself tramples First Amendment rights.
Restrictions have little chance of moving beyond political theater, or of winning compliance if passed.
No, because courts conclude that those terms are just opinions and name-calling.
The official was the Vice President for Student Affairs and Diversity at the University of North Dakota.
Are universities supposed to have institutional views on the facts about self-defense in a case half a continent way?
We talk about blogging, social media and free speech, the Religion Clauses, and federalism and individual rights.
The newspaper wrongly implies that press freedom is limited to "real" journalists.
The American Civil Liberties Union should not cavalierly take the side of prosecutors against the concept of self-defense.
The trial became an upside-down microcosm for the polarized debates about the U.S. criminal justice system.
British political scientist David Runciman says the answer is "yes." And he makes a stronger case than you might think.
This stop was a Fourth Amendment violation, holds a federal court.
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 thanksEvery 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 interestedSo 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 thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks