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."
"'Very liberal' students are nearly four times more likely than moderate and conservative students to favor prohibiting some types of speech."
LAMBDA Legal suggests the answer would be "yes," under the American Bar Association's proposed rule 8.4, which they are supporting.
Civil debate, whether on Trump/Russia, gun policy, or fungible abortion funding, begins in the workplace.
That's what D.C. stalking law, as interpreted by D.C. courts, calls for.
The councilman was Trayon "Rothschilds Control the Weather" White (or, if you prefer, Trayon "Nazi Stormtrooper Protectors" White).
Probably nothing. Which doesn't mean libertarians shouldn't be having a serious conversation after Santa Fe, Parkland, and other tragedies.
I'll grant Justice Courtney Goodson's request to block ads that allegedly libel her during her reelection campaign, says one trial judge. Unconstitutional prior restraint, says another.
None of the usual gun control proposals seems relevant to the massacre at Santa Fe High School.
A Washington Post headline misleads its readers.
Politicians, activists rehash calls for increased security, regulation of guns.
"For the safety of students of color"
Nick Gillespie talks to former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen about the difficulties and importance of free speech.
The city council's unanimous support for the new ban does not make up for its lack of logic and legality.
A new Google policy calls for such deindexing based on administrative agency findings-without a court order-in cases where the agency is "charged with protecting consumers' physical safety from harm by products or services that they consume."
When government has the power to censor, ultimately it will look for excuses to suppress opposition.
A conversation about social media, privacy, and the public-private, left-right free speech fight
"A northwest Arkansas judge who ordered that attack ads critical of Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson be taken off the air this week reported receiving [over $12,500 of] income, through his wife, from the law firm of Goodson's husband."
A customer reports that he was blocked from accessing us at a Nordstrom coffee shop; have you had similar experiences?
The company's new policy is already giving it problems.
More Second Amendment setbacks in the Golden State when the Supreme Court declines to take a case about city zoning
The ad criticizes Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson; the TRO that she just got today is almost certainly an unconstitutional prior restraint.
Data from the FBI's Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017 report; legal civilian gun carriers tried to intervene in 6 out of 50 incidents, and apparently succeeded in 3 or 4 of them.
..and other things I learned when I spoke at a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights briefing.
Fourth Amendment advocates score a limited victory in Byrd v. U.S.
A well-intentioned new policy threatens the violent, angry music we know and love.
How a scary name for an arbitrary group of firearms distorts the gun control debate
"[Defendant's] posts inspired viewers' comments, which read like a nerd's version of a fist fight." More substantively, "In this context, and considering the cutting-edge nature of [plaintiff's] research into antimatter's theoretical applications [which defendant was sharply criticizing], a reasonable reader would expect zealous debate."
Government, not private companies, is supposed to provide oversight over police behavior.
Golden State gun owners may soon be an endangered species, and no one is talking about why.
Stamford, Connecticut, police chief objects to salty language on a sign. That's not a crime.
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."
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