Justice Thomas Writes in Favor of a Narrow Reading of 47 U.S.C. § 230
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.
"I believe that I'm channeling my ancestors," says Second Amendment activist Brent Holmes, who carries an assault rifle to protests in Richmond, Virginia.
A good illustration of the modern rule, which allows some permanent injunctions against repeating specific statements found to be libelous at trial—but only after such a finding on the merits.
Inspired by Germany's notorious hate-speech law, more countries seek to impose steep penalties on platforms that don't comply with their censorship whims.
An Ohio judge suggests the answer should be "yes," and an Ohio statute seems to require that when Facebook employees learn of specific felonies revealed by posts that they might be monitoring for some reason.
Here are some ways to build a campus culture more open to free inquiry and discourse.
Plus: Trump says he plans to hold rallies despite lack of negative COVID-19 test, Biden won't answer question on court-packing, and more...
Improving diversity is a worthy endeavor. But compelled “diversity statements” are a form of social engineering that, ironically, can be exclusionary.
Plus: Tech companies respond, proposed H-1B visa changes, and more...
Most things faculty publish don’t lead to a backlash. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not an academic freedom problem.
Two courts say COVID-19 lockdowns in Michigan and Pennsylvania were unconstitutional.
These beliefs shouldn’t be considered the only legitimate way to see the world.
Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito worry about the future of religious freedom. That’s not the same as a call to overturn the decision.
The dynamics of the information ecosystem have impacted research and teaching.
Profs. Ilana Redstone and John Villasenor are guest-blogging this week about their new book.
A federal district court rejects the argument that the documentary will violate trade secret rights related to "a long-lost photograph that purportedly depicts Abraham Lincoln lying wounded on the night of his assassination."
As usual, at this point in the litigation the key questions focus on procedure.
The injunction, the court held, is an unconstitutional prior restraint.
And that's true even if state graffiti law provided probable cause for the arrest, so long as there's evidence that chalking with other messages almost never leads to arrests.
Regina Ip spins a fantasy of a just government restoring order to Hong Kong.
The 7th Circuit judge’s track record suggests she would frequently be a friend of civil liberties.
Leaders of the organization reportedly see this as tacit approval.
An interesting decision, on a motion for default judgment.
Selling weapons to the UAE would stamp brutality and extremism abroad with American approval.
Why does media coverage conclude the problem is that the government hasn’t done a good enough job of spying?
(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.
The opinion, which suggests a strong concern about due process, will nevertheless be cited as evidence of the SCOTUS nominee's "uniformly conservative" record.
Politicians are poised to tighten the screws, even though voluntary action offers more promise.
"The Croziers allege that the teacher 'lied to intentionally defame and label A.C. as a 'racist who said the N-word.'"
This would include group membership, information about where a spouse works, and more.
So concludes the Louisiana Supreme Court, in allowing a prisoner access to the jury vote breakdown in his case—quite important given the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling rejecting Louisiana nonunanimous convictions.
The SCOTUS contender's 2019 dissent will alarm gun control supporters but reassure people who want judges to take this constitutional provision as seriously as others.
The case is an encouraging sign that the SCOTUS contender is not the sort of judge who bends over backward to shield cops from liability for outrageous misconduct.
A new DOJ proposal aims to bring the internet communications law in line with Trump's personal interpretation of it.
Peace will come only from leaving other people alone on the condition that they do the same for us.
A trial court said this pouring (without the target's consent) was indeed constitutionally protected; it took a 2-1 Texas Court of Appeals decision to reverse that.
The parts that aren't constitutionally dubious are brainless culture-war fodder.
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