A Government Veto on Speech at the Supreme Court
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Murthy v. Missouri challenges government efforts to suppress dissenting viewpoints on social media.
Plus: 15,000 marijuana prosecutions pardoned, the latest sex trafficking urban legend, and more...
He was no libertarian, but he absorbed an important lesson about regulating speech.
It was terrible for free speech on the radio dial. We shouldn't inflict it on the internet too.
"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 37th president used the then-stronger tools of media regulation to manipulate the far more centralized 1970s news industry in ways that Donald Trump can only fantasize about.
Media bias has been far less harmful than media regulation bias. That can seal off whole markets and make everyone who's left too nervous to speak freely.
Barack Obama says he wouldn't reintroduce the Federal Communications Commission's most notorious speech-squashing regulation. But there are more mundane reasons to fear the next FCC.
Free speech is a fundamental right? Not when it comes to TV and radio broadcasters, it isn't—and an odd coalition of liberals and conservatives want to keep it that way.
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