Welcome to the Busing Election!
What the backward-looking Democratic debate tells us about contemporary education policy and woke politics
What the backward-looking Democratic debate tells us about contemporary education policy and woke politics
"Fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights."
It’s the ‘90s all over again, and the White House is in no mood to humor tech companies right now.
Noted political publicist Trevor FitzGibbon (who had represented Julian Assange) sues whistleblower lawyer Jesselyn Radack (who had represented Edward Snowden) -- a second time.
Masked activists attacked the Quillette editor with fists and milkshakes, sending him to the emergency room.
Rules always seem to make officials do terrible things when they don’t want to do what is right.
As governments and law enforcement agencies rush to incorporate facial recognition tech, California lawmakers have a chance to slam on the brakes.
The state's Liquor and Cannabis Board changed its policy after Hempfest and two marijuana retailers challenged it on constitutional grounds.
What the hell is going on with this state?
None of the participants in last night's debate had a credible answer to the question of what should be done about the hundreds of millions of guns that Americans already own.
A flawed study continues to be repeated as if it proves something about the efficacy of gun permit laws.
Activist and celebrity musician Denise Ho discusses the Hong Kong protests, her 2014 arrest, and the future of Hong Kong's autonomy from China.
The Court of Appeal has ordered that the formerly nonprecedential decision, which I blogged about four weeks ago, will now be precedential.
Countries across the world tackle political misinformation with authoritarian censorship.
And don't even try to pin Elizabeth Warren down on whether the procedure should be legal in the third trimester.
Early debates actually tell us a good deal about where political parties are heading.
Prior Minnesota precedents had said that some First Amendment protections against defamation liability applied only to media speakers.
The government's latest moral crusade shields traffickers, empowers pimps, and undermines free speech online.
Most of the party’s presidential contenders show little or no concern for the right to armed self-defense.
It's Ravelry, and it's not just a "knitting site."
Boggs-Perez is the recently elected trustee of the San-Antonio-area Judson Independent School District, and the requests aimed to deindex columns about her in the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the San Antonio Express-News.
The bill would turn law-abiding gun owners into felons for possessing a product that is almost never used in violent crimes.
It may be time to hire a libel service.
Ron Wyden and Rand Paul team up to stop Border Patrol from snooping in your stuff without good reason.
"Section 230 has nothing to do with neutrality. Nothing. Zip. There is absolutely no weight to that argument," Wyden says. He oughta know. He wrote the damn thing.
The celebrated law professor lost his position as faculty dean after students demanded his firing.
From Sohrab Ahmari to Josh Hawley, what the new right really wants is to squelch free expression.
Such speech, whether about elected officials or others, is punishable, the court held, if it "[does] not express social or political beliefs or constitute legitimate conduct" and "could only serve to harass, annoy or alarm the complainant."
Justice Natalie Lieven ruled it was in the woman's "best interests" because she has learning disabilities.
"Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy."
That result "may strike some as unfair," the court says, but it's what state law required at the time.
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
So the majority held in today's decision about the exclusion of "immoral or scandalous" marks from trademark registration (the FUCT case).
The Supreme Court rules that the bar on "immoral or scandalous" marks is viewpoint-based, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor say that an exclusion of "vulgar or profane" marks would be viewpoint-neutral though content-based. (The other five Justices express no opinion on a hypothetical "vulgar or profane" mark ban.)
A local bakery accused the college of defamation after students launched a public campaign against the store for racial profiling. Oberlin mounted a free speech defense.
But isn't this really Obama's fault?
According to the ACLU of Rhode Island, which is representing the blogger, the order was issued without any adversarial hearing at which the blogger could appear.
Like America itself, gun owners are a varied bunch whose politics and experiences don't conform to any narrative.
The close 5-4 ruling is an important victory for constitutional property rights.
"I think it’s ridiculous I would have to trade one of my rights," said veteran Joshua Raines.
The artist wanted students to learn about Washington's flaws. How traumatizing.
Stanford Law professor and former Google attorney Daphne Keller says tech giants are facing pressure from governments worldwide to clamp down on content.
Plus: Immigration officials confirm Trump tweets about new raids, Elizabeth Warren talks sex work decriminalization, and more...
The dispute over Harvard's decision to rescind the admission of Parkland shooting survivor/gun rights activist Kyle Kashuv should remind us of the reasons why we should not have given any special status to his views in the first place. The same goes for most others in similar situations.
A district judge says no, but don't expect the state’s gun-grabbing politicians to give up.
The move is an assault on free speech.
Don't blame him for any FISA abuses. He's been fighting it for years.
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