"What a Company Decides to Put on Their Vehicle Is a Matter of Free Speech and the Market"
A tiny free speech victory.
A tiny free speech victory.
The First Amendment constrains speech regulation by the government, not by private parties.
I coauthored an amicus brief in an important takings case, on behalf of the Cato Institute, The National Federation of Independent Business, and several other organizations.
How much do you trust judges to make such decisions without public scrutiny?
The government still snoops on its own citizens, but we're more aware of it-and we can push back.
There's a New Hampshire prosecution for criminal libel of a police chief -- and it may well be legally viable, at least if the defendant's statement is seen as a knowingly false factual claim. [UPDATE, June 8, 2018: Charges have now been dropped.]
Despite its ruling in favor of a Colorado baker, the Court remains hostile to religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.
The court decision was just a declaratory judgment, and thus not strictly legally binding.
An interesting opinion from three Georgia Supreme Court Justices.
"Slowly, we will continue to crush the Left's will to resist, as they will crack under pressure."
A libel lawsuit in which the alleged libel is sealed is like Hamlet without the Prince -- or maybe like Othello with Iago's slanders redacted.
Four Justices opined on this issue, with Justices Thomas and Gorsuch saying that requiring bakers to make cakes for same-sex weddings is an unconstitutional speech compulsion, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor saying the opposite.
This 7-2 ruling is more about Colorado's biased enforcement of discrimination law than freedom of expression.
"[A] soldier who willfully communicates information relating to the national defense 'is not entitled to invoke the First Amendment as a shield to immunize his act of thievery.'"
No, says the Iowa Supreme Court, rejecting the claim that such statements (labeled "counterculture practices" by the plaintiffs) were libelous or negligent.
His sneak attack on the reproductive rights of women.
Conservatives want to hold the left to the Roseanne standard.
The center-right Danish government, whose members defended the Mohammed cartoons, has passed more laws restricting free speech than any government since World War II, says free-speech podcaster Jacob Mchangama.
But it took a federal court order.
Our video is awesome. But nothing in the First Amendment says YouTube has to run it.
We offer how-tos, personal stories, and guides for all kinds of activities that can and do happen right at the borders of legally permissible behavior.
Build a Glock 17 using parts from the internet
A beginner's guide to protecting your messages, masking online movements, and steering clear of digital snoops
The very fact that Robinson got 13 months in jail was also initially illegal to report.
The show navigated a fascinating complicated world of ideological diversity. Its star was not so adept.
The president and his detractors both bungle scare stories in the outrage-politics contest that passes for our immigration policy debate.
Was their miscount of unlockable phones truly a mistake or part of an agenda?
Let's argue about the president's policies instead of his "grammar & style."
College limits protest, suppressing everybody's free expression.
Star Trek actor is a victim of #MeToo overreach.
The Supreme Court has been almost completely silent on the subject of gun rights, leaving important issues unresolved.
The former head of our intelligence agencies thinks we're all easily manipulated rubes. Is that why he lied to the Senate?
Friday A/V Club: The boxer who just got a posthumous presidential pardon was a central figure in one of the first battles over movie censorship.
A new Vice feature by Michael Moynihan highlights not just disillusioned comics but campus bookers ready to "pull the microphone" from performers who use language deemed intolerant.
The ruling against Donald Trump's blocking of Twitter critics provides guidelines for staying on the right side of the First Amendment.
"You have to stand proudly for the national anthem," Trump says, "or you shouldn't be playing."
Federal judge rules that the First Amendment prohibits the president from blocking followers based on their political views.
So holds a federal district court today, in Knight First Amendment Institute v. Trump.
Teams will now be fined if their employees don't show sufficient on-field respect during the National Anthem, because we live in a very serious country.
[UPDATE: The university is now reported (as of Friday, May 25) to be saying that no investigation is taking place, and that the original student newspaper account saying that there was such an investigation was mistaken; but the university hadn't responded to FIRE's earlier queries about the matter, and it hadn't responded to my query before I had to put up my post.]
Americans have developed a nasty habit of inviting the state into people's lives for tiny offenses. Here are three ways to turn back the tide.
"If people are offended by his shirt-that's their right to be offended," said the student's attorney, state Rep. Mike McLane. "But it's also his right to have his opinion."
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