Prof. Hamburger is wrong to argue that the use of the word "abridgment" implies that noncoercive government persuasion directed at social media firms violates the First Amendment.
The law would require platforms to use invasive measures to prevent most teenagers under 16 from making social media accounts and bar all minors from sexually explicit sites.
U.S. prosecutors are looking to wriggle out of an espionage trial for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
"Mayors should not be allowed to launder animus through warrants," the former city council member's lawyer told the justices.
State officials “jawboned” financial firms into cutting ties with the gun-rights group.
The Biden administration’s social media meddling went far beyond "information" and "advice."
If partisans have one thing in common, it's confirmation bias.
The justices established guidelines for determining whether that is true in any particular case.
The government is entitled to try to persuade social media to take down posts, but not to coerce them to do so.
Several justices seemed concerned that an injunction would interfere with constitutionally permissible contacts.
The story behind the city's ban on unlicensed drone businesses is even weirder than the ban itself.
The company leaves Texas over an “ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous” age-verification law.
The former civil liberties group continues morphing into a progressive organization.
The newspaper portrays the constitutional challenge to the government's social media meddling as a conspiracy by Donald Trump's supporters.
The president of the new University of Austin wants to reverse the decline of higher education in America.
Instead of freeing Americans from censorship, the TikTok bill would tighten the U.S. government's control over social media.
Even as they attack the Biden administration's crusade against "misinformation," Missouri and Louisiana defend legal restrictions on content moderation.
"Laws like this don't solve the problems they try to address but only make them worse," says a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney.
As Joe Biden gives his speech, the audience will include this reminder of the journalist he’s trying to jail.
Censorship of 2,872 Pennsylvania license plates raises free speech questions.
A new bill would ban TikTok and give the president power to declare other social media apps off limits.
A law forcing kids off social media sites is still likely coming to Florida.
Salina, Kansas, restaurant owner Steve Howard argues in a new lawsuit that the city's sign regulations violate the First Amendment.
Students should be able to peacefully protest events, but they shouldn't disrupt a speaker or assault attendees.
The Chick-fil-A story heard 'round the world.
A federal judge in an ongoing case called the porn age-check scheme unconstitutional. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton doesn't seem to care.
The First Amendment restricts governments, not private platforms, and respects editorial rights.
Supreme Court arguments about two social media laws highlight a dangerous conflation of state and private action.
The Supreme Court seems inclined to recognize that content moderation is protected by the First Amendment.
The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents believe that America is on the "wrong track" when it comes to free speech.
The laws violate the First Amendment because they require social media sites to abjure most content moderation, and platform speech they disapprove of.
Both states are trying to force tech companies to platform certain sorts of speech.
These aren't outright bans. But they still can chill free speech and academic freedom.
The WikiLeaks founder already has spent as much time in a London prison as DOJ lawyers say he is likely to serve if convicted in the U.S.
The judge found that Food Not Bombs' activity was clearly expressive conduct under the First Amendment.
From limits on liability protections for websites to attempts to regulate the internet like a public utility, these proposals will erode Americans' right to express themselves.
"None of these laws prevent kids from viewing anything. They just prevent kids from posting," argues Shoshana Weissmann.
Banning people under age 16 from accessing social media without parental consent "is a breathtakingly blunt instrument" for reducing potential harms, the judge writes.
An analysis of appeals involving the doctrine finds that less than a quarter "fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force."
R. Anthony Rupp III was cited and detained after he called a police officer an "asshole" after the cop nearly drove into two pedestrians.
Sen. Mike Lee's "technological exploitation" bill also redefines consent.
A federal judge allowed a lawsuit against the officers to proceed, finding evidence of several constitutional violations.
The Biden administration's interference with bookselling harks back to a 1963 Supreme Court case involving literature that Rhode Island deemed dangerous.
Food Not Bombs activists argue that feeding the needy is core political speech, and that they don't need the city's permission to do it.
The verdict vindicates the constitutional rights that Louisiana sheriff's deputies flagrantly violated when they hauled Waylon Bailey off to jail.
Disney has vowed to appeal the ruling.
Celebrate your independence with a subscription to Reason magazine, your most trusted source of honest, insightful news and analysis.
