Massachusetts Bill Would Impose $200 Fines, 6 Months in Jail for Using the Word 'Bitch'
The bill is an obvious First Amendment violation says Jim Manley of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
The bill is an obvious First Amendment violation says Jim Manley of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Defining a company with political branding is risky business.
Plus: Court says scraping social media profiles is not hacking, and more...
Defining terms is tricky, particularly when governments with bad track records on privacy want to call the shots.
The Reason Roundtable analyzes an establishment smear against a foreign policy heretic, and laments the bipartisan panic against online speech.
"Antifa and the Far Right," he adds, are "good for nothing."
"Petitioner had absolutely no prior notice that either his mental health or the safe handling subsection would be at issue during the hearing before the trial court."
The council's design all but ensures absurdities like this.
For once, the Trump administration is on the right side of a debate with Congress over trade.
A change in Tennessee’s definition of a firearm allows for felons to own a gun provided it was manufactured before 1899.
The 7th Circuit said the guard is protected by qualified immunity.
The encryption limits that the Justice Department demands in the name of security would make all of us less secure.
Asked how he'd actually follow through on his promise to "take your AR-15," the former Texas congressman didn't have much of an answer.
The former HUD Secretary is still terrible on guns, but at least he recognizes some of the costs of actually enforcing gun laws.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal would give journalists special federal protections that they don't need.
James called Trump a "bum," but he won't utter a single bad word about China's authoritarianism.
"University of Louisville [current and former] students ... asserted a claim that the publication of Katina Powell's book Breaking Cardinal Rules: Basketball and the Escort Queen resulted in a tortious diminution in the value of their University of Louisville education."
Nah, the senator's still wrong about Internet free speech, argue the editors on the Reason Roundtable podcast.
"The safety of our children in school is paramount, today more than ever," said the police chief.
But they might be mad at mom for writing about them in The New York Times.
Plus: Trump murder meme makes waves, California requires abortion pill at public universities, and more...
Are parents liable for defamation by their minor children?
"Mumbai’s cyber police department seeks to remove content [containing obviously PhotoShopped images of Prime Minister Narendra Modi] hosted on this [Northern Ireland] blog, BuzzFeed, Google Blogger, Amazon CloudFront, Tumblr, and Flickr."
As always, the best answer to bad speech is more speech, not censorship.
A decision based on a poor grasp of gun technology.
This week's demonstrations at NBA games are a refreshing reminder that Americans won't just "stick to sports."
"The logical conclusion of Plaintiff's argument is that whenever someone sues for defamation because of potentially embarrassing comments, the plaintiff should be allowed to sue anonymously and with the case under seal."
Years after surveillance reforms, federal personnel can’t seem to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
Should participation in an election hinge on a voter's identity being made public? Of course not.
The mostly young demonstrators are calling for autonomy and democracy—and won't be silenced like the NBA.
The gaming company suspended Chung Ng Wai for a year and confiscated his prize money after he said "Liberate Hong Kong."
Apparently the NBA's kow-towing to Communist China is not limited to groveling press statements.
Justices weigh textual conflict over what counts as “sex discrimination” versus what Congress originally intended.
A Maine court said this would violate the private investigator's First Amendment rights, even if the police concluded the statements were false, unless they were also found to have been knowingly or recklessly false -- but should even a finding of knowing falsehood be enough?
Plus: sex discrimination before SCOTUS today, Warren stands by pregnancy firing claim, and more...
The Court of Appeals concluded, I think correctly, that the statute went beyond punishable threats of violence, and beyond punishable blackmail, to cover constitutionally protected demands.
Reason editors discuss vaping deaths, the impeachment inquiry, and the resurgent conservative war on porn.
Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cover sexual orientation and gender identity?
"You gotta lower your ideals of freedom if you want to suck on the warm teat of China."
So holds a Connecticut decision, I think correctly:
When the human condition resists perfection through legislation, the answer always seems to be more—and stupider—laws.
The California Court of Appeal upheld the fee, awarded to a student who had been accused of sexual misconduct.
"Red flag" laws leave gun owners defenseless.
The 2018 Uniform Crime Report contained bad news for pessimists but good news for everybody else.
Encryption, other privacy measures, and decentralization have made the protest movement possible.
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! 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 thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
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