"The Commission does not ... act as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism. plus an interesting discussion of the FCC's hoax rules.
Under fire for refusing to support Tara Reade, Milano says she never thought #MeToo would "destroy innocent men."
Not every apparent violation of a quarantine order is a risk to other people, and not all need to be (or can be) enforced equally.
On appeal, Ohio interpreted the limit (part of a temporary ban on all "non-essential" surgeries and procedures) as not banning abortions when "any delay will jeopardize the woman's right to obtain an abortion," but only as delaying earlier-term abortions that can be delayed—but it apparently hadn't made that argument in the trial court.
Today, Judge Judge Timothy M. Witkowiak refused to issue the injunction, partly on prior restraint grounds. The election is scheduled for tomorrow.
Confusing travel distance with actual human mingling is no way to create smart policy.
Heard's Washington Post op-ed didn't mention Depp, but the judge concludes that in context it would be seen as implying factual assertions about him.
Anyone who wants to restrict free speech should contemplate what it would be like if your enemy gets to choose what gets said.
The store owner thought his employee acted in reasonable defense of property and self. The police disagreed.
“The federal government forgot the Tenth Amendment and the structure of the Constitution itself.”
An innocent man was beaten up by a local police detective and an FBI agent. No one wants to take responsibility.
Lawmakers are peddling restrictions on self-defense and other rights to a frightened public.
Politicians and the public are alarmingly willing to violate civil liberties in the name of fighting the epidemic.
Carter Page was not an anomaly.
Don't the authorities have better things to do with their time right now?
A word that appears >10,000 times in court cases, in a wide range of fields -- yet some insist that law professors not be allowed to quote it.
Threatening shops for selling chocolate Easter eggs and mocking people who are actually following the law undermines citizens’ trust.
Plus: "Netflix for 3-D guns," viral authoritarianism, COVID-19 behind bars, and more…
The county's ban on firearm sales is inconsistent with a new federal advisory as well as the Second Amendment.
The government is perfectly capable of counting heads in a less-intrusive and more-hygienic way.
An interesting, though inconclusive, case involving preppers.
An interesting post by Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) on a demand letter ProctorU sent to UCSB.
The biggest thing our institutions could do to stop the spread of COVID-19 misinformation would be to spread less misinformation themselves.
though subject to stringent rules aimed at preventing coronavirus spread.
Or is the Second Amendment suspended for the duration of the epidemic?
Plus "An accused student's rights must be guaranteed—not left open for interpretation."
Can it justify temporarily forbidding people to buy guns?
Despite broad claims from the company, available police reports don't support the idea that filming everything in front of people's doors stops much crime.
It depends on the state where you live.
The district court reasoned that sealing was justified because of "the child's privacy interest in being protected from financial predators or others who would harass the child simply because they know the amount received." No, said the Fifth Circuit.
It particularly emphasizes ways in which weak property rights harm the poor and disadvantaged.
Emergency restrictions should always be lifted as soon as the crisis has sufficiently abated.
Plus: the pandemic in prisons, pushback on Trump's prescription for economic rebound, and more...
The contagious spread of information is in a race against the contagious spread of coronavirus.
They have a long history of spying on dissident political groups, from early 20th century socialists and mid-century civil rights leaders to modern environmentalists and Black Lives Matter.
Congress should loudly and unanimously reject this insanity.
An important principle, which also applies to uses of trademarked terms in films, books, video games, and the like: "A party does not violate trademark law solely by using words another entity has trademarked."
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is almost always going to be "no." But some compensation may be morally imperative, even if not legally required.
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 thanks
Every 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 interested
So 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 thanks
Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks