Utah Would Rather Repeal Social Media Age Check Law Than Defend It In Court
Laws like Utah's would require anyone using social media to prove their age through methods such as submitting biometric data or a government-issued ID.
Laws like Utah's would require anyone using social media to prove their age through methods such as submitting biometric data or a government-issued ID.
Where are the misinformation czars and the mainstream media fact-checkers now?
Plus: Chatbots vs. suicidal ideation, Margot Robbie vs. the patriarchy, New York City vs. parents, and more...
The Things Fell Apart host explains how a 1988 quack medical concept inspired George Floyd's death in 2020 and how Plandemic rewrote Star Wars.
The Things Fell Apart host Jon Ronson explains how a 1988 quack medical concept inspired George Floyd's death in 2020 and how Plandemic is basically a rewrite of Star Wars.
It's Super Size Me for internet intellectuals.
In an amicus brief filed in Murthy v. Missouri, they ignore basic tenets of First Amendment law in order to quash online speech they don't like.
Free societies generally leave these matters to individuals and families.
"There has been a deliberate attempt to inflame the public against experts," warned one Davos panelist.
A new lawsuit is challenging a Utah law that requires age verification to use social media and forces minors to get their parents permission first.
The bill is broad enough to target a Saturday Night Live skit lampooning Trump, a comedic impression of Taylor Swift, or a weird ChatGPT-generated image of Ayn Rand.
The errors are so glaring that it's hard not to suspect an underlying agenda at work here.
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
"It's not really a movement. Nobody is pushing it. People are just living it."
Stanford's Jay Bhattacharya debates St. John University's Kate Klonick on the federal government's role in social media censorship.
The brief urges the Supreme Court to reverse its badly misguided precedent in Pruneyard v. Robins.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.
The webathon is technically over, but if there's one thing journalists understand, it's procrastination.
The ban, scheduled to take effect on January 1, is likely unconstitutional in multiple ways, the judge held.
The 2024 GOP candidate has proposed something blatantly unconstitutional.
"Being a true free speech champion does require that you defend speech that even you disagree with," says libertarian Rikki Schlott.
The Supreme Court considers whether and when banishing irksome constituents violates the First Amendment.
The propensity of prosecutors to jump to conclusions before all the evidence is in is very destructive—and nothing new.
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
“We've taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That's no way to grow up.”
Democrats and Republicans are united in thinking their political agendas trump the First Amendment.
Popular podcasts and shows portray crime as salacious and sexy, failing ordinary victims in the process.
The justices agreed to consider whether the Biden administration's efforts to suppress online "misinformation" were unconstitutional.
Perhaps the Walter Cronkite Awards ought to have slightly higher standards?
Even content creators outside of New York would feel its effects.
Social media overuse among teens may be a symptom, not the cause, of their distress.
We should all be skeptical that the same government that can't balance a budget can revamp the dominant form of modern communications and boost young people's self-esteem.
If Facebook et al. are pushing a "radical leftist narrative," why don’t they have a constitutional right to do that?
A series of studies suggest it's not algorithms that are driving political polarization, ignorance, or toxicity online.
The laws require major social media platforms to host content they disapprove of for substantive reasons.
The late California senator always seemed to err on the side of more government power and less individual freedom.
The Republican presidential candidate ignores the lethal impact of the drug policies he avidly supports.
Popular podcasts and shows portray crime as salacious and sexy, failing ordinary victims in the process.
Yoel Roth worries about government meddling in content moderation, except when Democrats target "misinformation."
This sets a dangerous precedent.
The appeals court narrowed a preliminary injunction against such meddling but confirmed the threat that it poses to freedom of speech.
A surveillance authority in the country’s troubling Online Safety Bill won’t be enforced, officials say. But for how long?
The Colorado governor finds common ground with many libertarians. But does he really stand for more freedom?
Plus: A listener question concerning porn verification laws.
Plus: The doubling of the deficit, young Americans souring on college, and more...
Plus: Meta revises controversial "dangerous organizations" policy, a win against civil asset forfeiture in Detroit, and more...
There are already people responsible for regulating children’s online activity: parents and guardians.
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