2 Controversies Over Political Rhetoric Illustrate the Perils of Blaming Gun Control Critics for Murder
That strategy, which rejects the possibility of sincere disagreement, is poisonous to rational debate.
That strategy, which rejects the possibility of sincere disagreement, is poisonous to rational debate.
“This is protected speech,” said the app’s creator. “We are determined to fight this with everything we have."
Thank goodness that judge struck down the legislation he supported.
Two bills recently introduced by Hawley would set American AI and the economy back.
Civil liberties attorney Jenin Younes recounts her role in Murthy v. Missouri, her opposition to pandemic mandates, and why she believes Trump poses an even greater threat to free speech than Biden.
The decision is the most thorough in a line of recent court decisions reaching similar results.
The order lists "anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity" as common threads among "domestic terrorists," though all are protected by the First Amendment.
Democrats are vowing to break up media companies that kowtowed to Trump if they take back power.
From the Fairness Doctrine to Nixon’s “raised eyebrow,” government licensing power has long chilled broadcast speech—proving the First Amendment should apply fully to the airwaves.
The Hendry County Sheriff accused Captains for Clean Water of "fuel[ing] hostility and provok[ng] violent rhetoric," but a free speech advocacy group says they were well within the First Amendment.
Plus: ICE helps arrest sex workers, the SIM farm "security threat," Waymo car crashes caused by human error, and more...
History suggests that Republicans will regret letting the FCC police TV programming.
In her 1962 essay "Have Gun, Will Nudge," Rand explained exactly how the public interest standard would lead to censorship.
Under the law, transgender people writing about their gender identity online could face 20 years in prison and a $100,000 fine.
The First Amendment still stands, but the culture that supports it is eroding.
Rand Paul concurs that the threats preceding the comedian's suspension were "absolutely inappropriate" because the agency has "no business weighing in on this."
And Trump's much more extreme one. [EV writes: I bumped this post from yesterday, because it struck me as especially timely and substantively valuable.]
Vice President J.D. Vance and Sen. Cynthia Lummis are among the latest conservatives to turn their backs on free speech when it comes to their ideological opponents.
The Trump Administration's recent abuses of the agency's powers lend weight to longstanding libertarian arguments for abolishing it, going back to Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase's classic 1959 article.
What the Trump administration is doing to late-night comedy is clearly jawboning.
"We can do this the easy way or the hard way," the FCC chairman said, threatening to punish broadcasters for airing the comedian's show.
Plus: America's cocaine habit, how Charlie Kirk handled South Park, and more...
Plus: Pam Bondi flunks free speech 101.
On the latest episode of Free Media, Amber Duke and I discuss the assassination of Charlie Kirk, cancel culture, and political violence.
It’s mainly praise for Trump: “President Trump secured the greatest personal and political achievement in American history.”
Rand Paul, who called for "a crackdown on people" who celebrated the assassination, was less careful in distinguishing between private and government action.
Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, more targeted harassment means it's more constitutional to fire a government worker.
The attorney general is now getting called out by fellow conservatives.
Freedom of speech cannot reliably protect conservatives unless it also protects people they despise.
Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins, who once opposed government jawboning, now says people should be banned from both social media and public life over their posts.
We should welcome renunciations of violence from those who disagree with Kirk, and dispute nonsense across the political spectrum.
Once a left-wing fetish, the heckler’s veto has gained conservative adherents.
There is no hard evidence of Gmail discriminating against Republican campaign emails, but that’s no matter to the FTC Chairman.
The Irish comedian's arrest by British authorities is an outrage.
Over the past two decades, scores of business owners across the nation have sought to refuse services for same-sex weddings, an SMU Law School study finds
Plus: Government stake in Intel, inside the DNC, RFK Jr. brings back whole milk, and more...
The president is the last person who should confuse protected speech with incitement to violence.
Age verification laws are already coming for Americans’ access to free speech.
Obviously drag shows are protected by the First Amendment.
Thin-skinned MAGA can dish it out, but can't take mockery.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression is seeking an injunction that would protect noncitizens at The Stanford Daily from arrest and removal because of their published work.
Michael Weitzel was ejected for violating the club’s fan code of conduct, which prohibits “threatening, abusive, or discriminatory" symbols and language.
Joshua Rohrer's dog, Sunshine, ran away and was later hit and killed by a car.
X has begun restricting content related to Gaza for its U.K. users, and Reddit has implemented age-verification measures to view posts about cigars.
The campus' settlement with the federal government is bound to create free speech headaches.
Occupational licensing can be useless, harmful—and even a threat to free speech.
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