From Washington to Wisconsin, States Are Punishing Dissent
Faced with the possibility of fines or legal battles, many will choose not to speak at all.
Faced with the possibility of fines or legal battles, many will choose not to speak at all.
According to the group's theory, a vast range of political hardball is a crime.
"A bias response system has no place in America."
Too many people (and governments) want to shut down and punish speech they disagree with.
So concludes the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, in rejecting rapper Dr. Dre's trademark claim against OB/GYN -- and OB/GYN-related writer and lecturer -- Draion M. Burch, who calls himself Dr. Drai.
A First Amendment violation, I think, notwithstanding the court's concern about the anonymous Tweeter's privacy.
The EU's GDPR should serve as a cautionary tale for Americans eager to reign in tech titans
Self-defense rights need to be a cause in themselves, not just a totem of political tribal identity.
"A horrifying and chilling example of political correctness."
The New Jersey Supreme Court answers.
So the New Jersey Supreme Court held this morning, in Petro-Lubricant Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. Adelman.
"Freedom of the press," as I've argued in earlier posts, was understood as protecting the freedom of all to use the printing press -- not just a freedom of the profession or industry that we might call "the press."
When it comes to the Second Amendment, the president is all talk.
Rahm Emanuel wants to do the thing that critics of drone surveillance fear most.
The outrage at a Florida newspaper reveals a deep antipathy toward all forms of gun ownership.
Students who support the Second Amendment "feel that they're being misrepresented by the media," says protest organizer Will Riley.
Does their commitment to family values stop at the Rio Grande's edge?
Some judges in recent have years have reasoned that non-professional-media speakers have lesser First Amendment rights.
Siwatu-Salama Ra used a legally purchased firearm to protect her family. She was sentenced to 2 years in prison.
Man goes to jail for complaining about police response times.
Peashooter prohibitions are on the rise.
In a politicized environment, getting on the wrong side of regulators can be dangerous. Don't be surprised if banks and insurers cave.
The government fears that the popular children's cartoon has taken on a "subversive hue" and may "hamper positive societal morale."
One activist is ordered "not [to] post photographs videos, or information about [the other] to any internet site."
The HBO series turns Facebook and Twitter into a theme park filled with sex, violence, and robots.
One of America's largest body camera suppliers has expressed interest in the technology.
"Freedom of the press," as I've argued in earlier posts, was understood as protecting the freedom of all to use the printing press -- not just a freedom of the profession or industry that we might call "the press."
Social media can actually be pretty good at hosting heated conversations about racism and sexism.
At the end of one Avengers screening, a man started yelling, "If you were to die tonight, would your passage to heaven be guaranteed?"
City councilman names his WiFi network "[Name of mayor and her husband] stocking u2"; could be libelous, holds the Idaho Supreme Court by a 3-2 vote.
Brooklyn Council Member Justin Brannan crows via tweet that "we've successfully chased the @NRA underground in #Brooklyn."
Speakers' free speech rights threatened
Do you have a reasonable expectation of genetic privacy under the Fourth Amendment?
Chance The Rapper says the unthinkable and takes it back. But he's right, and not just about African Americans.
So a federal district court in Illinois held yesterday.
Parkland survivor and pro-gun activist Kyle Kashuv was also punished.
More on why the freedom of the press wasn't seen as limited to "the press" in the sense of the institutional media, but extended to all who used the printing press.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals let a case against gun-sales advertising site Armslist go forward -- and in the process undermined 47 U.S.C. § 230 protection for a wide range of web sites.
In 1980, the Minnesota Supreme Court said "yes"; yesterday, it agreed to hear a case that might lead it to reconsider.
Some argue that the "freedom of the press" must give special rights to the press-as-industry, because otherwise it would be redundant of the "freedom of the speech" -- but in the Framing era, the two were complementary, not redundant.
Journalism prof Michael Socolow has three simple rules to up your social-media literacy.
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