The War on Backpage.com Is a War on Sex Workers
The government's latest moral crusade shields traffickers, empowers pimps, and undermines free speech online.
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.
Hawley is selling it as a way to fight tech-company "bias" against Republicans. Don't believe him.
"These type of microaggressions occur too often on campus."
Reason's Robby Soave on his new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump
I shouted out, who killed online freedom of speech? When after all, it was you and me.
It's become nothing but a weapon fought over by people who want to smash each other—and you.
Alice sends nude picture to her ex, Bob. Bob's new girlfriend (or maybe would-be girlfriend) Carol gets it and posts it online. Carol wouldn't be guilty under the state revenge porn statute, the court rules.
The president's spokeswoman is doing what she has always done on TV, unencumbered by the legal distinction between partisan pundit and executive branch employee.
Also: Mike Lee says Congress must reassert power over the presidency. And so long to Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
A lawyer caught on tape criticizing his client (a judge), in the making of a documentary about the prosecution of rapper Meek Mill.
New technologies mean new crimesolving techniques—and new threats to privacy and liberty.
Nancy Pelosi's overwrought take on Donald Trump's receptiveness to "oppo research" is hard to take seriously.
A small city in California has been plagued by police shootings, costly civil rights lawsuits, and incidents of excessive force.
Habitually untrustworthy snoops still demand we trust them to monitor our communications.
The debate about whether the killer should have been prosecuted for federal hate crimes shows how the Justice Department targets defendants based on the opinions they express.
Be afraid as more journalists and politicians start calling for stronger policing of online speech.
Plus: Amash says the "two-party system is hurting America," Zuckerberg gets deepfaked, Wonkette's lame defense of Harris, and more...
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