A Constitutionally Dubious California Bill Would Ban Possession of AI-Generated Child Pornography
The proposal seems to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling against laws that criminalize mere possession of obscene material.
The proposal seems to conflict with a Supreme Court ruling against laws that criminalize mere possession of obscene material.
The freedom to protest is essential to the American project. It also does not give you carte blanche to violate other laws.
It's a frightening reminder of how far the government will go to get their way—and to warn tech companies against platforming speech it doesn't like.
Plus: Beverly Hills homeowners can't build new pools until their city allows new housing, a ballot initiative would legalize California's newest city, and NIMBYs sue to overturn zoning reform (again).
It could also outlaw any sort of sexualized image, play, or performance, pornographic or not.
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president.
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.
"There has been a deliberate attempt to inflame the public against experts," warned one Davos panelist.
How identity politics and institutional cowardice have undermined the free speech on which our society relies.
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.
Author James Kirchick supports the First Amendment, full stop. Why don't more journalists?
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.
Republicans should remember that they have spent years railing against censorship on college campuses.
"The First Amendment prevents DeSantis from identifying a reform prosecutor and then suspending him to garner political benefit," U.S. Circuit Judge Jill Pryor wrote.
The state Senate bill, which is extremely similar to another House proposal, aims to scrap major First Amendment protections in defamation cases.
The next president should put more effort into fixing the college's abysmal free speech ranking.
Restricting speech about the world's most pressing problems does not make them go away, nor does it settle any disputes.
New anti-drag laws were deemed unconstitutional in every state where they were challenged this year.
Instead of indulging in politically risky sedition prosecutions of the black press, the government relied on indirect methods of behind-the-scenes manipulation and intimidation.
The Colorado Supreme Court's reasoning in deciding that Trump is constitutionally disqualified from running for president seems iffy.
FIRE and the ACLU of Vermont are now representing the man in a free speech lawsuit.
The ACLU will represent the gun rights group in a case with widespread relevance for free speech.
A graduate student was forced to take down two pro-Palestinian signs from the door of her art studio, but others were allowed to keep up their own political messages.
In her article, University of Pennsylvania professor Claire O. Finkelstein absurdly argued that colleges treat free speech as "near-sacred."
Liz Magill and two other university leaders provoked bipartisan outrage by defending freedom of expression on campus.
Plus: A listener asks if there is any place libertarians can go to start their own country or city state.
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.
Plus: the U.S. Justice Department says zoning restrictions on a church's soup kitchen are likely illegal, more cities pass middle housing reforms, and California gears up for another rent control fight.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a bill last month that would bar federal agencies from forcing employees to respect preferred names or pronouns.
The political push behind the law was well-meaning. But it will backfire on many prospective renters.
The ban, scheduled to take effect on January 1, is likely unconstitutional in multiple ways, the judge held.
Moral panic plus government power is an inescapably potent combination.
In separate criminal racketeering cases, prosecutors are using rap lyrics and the personal diary of a protester shot and killed by police as evidence.
The university is violating John Strauss's free speech rights.
A D.C. Circuit judge says the government’s defense of the order gives short shrift to "the First Amendment’s vigorous protection of political speech."
The Florida governor is attacking Republican primary rival Nikki Haley over her awful idea to police online speech, but the timing is awkward.
When people from historically privileged groups are facing censorship, that doesn't mean people in historically marginalized groups are actually being empowered.
Clarence Cocroft filed a lawsuit this week challenging the state's virtual ban on advertising medical marijuana businesses, arguing the law violates his First Amendment rights.
The 2024 GOP candidate has proposed something blatantly unconstitutional.
The change came after concerns were raised about "potential personal liability for university actors who deactivate the student registered organization," according to state officials.
A student’s overzealous school spirit shouldn't ruin his life.
"Is there any way to stop this from happening tomorrow?" Ron DeSantis' former chief of staff asked about a Christmas-themed drag show on tour in Florida.
"If we can't trust ourselves as a culture to accommodate ideas we don't like," the novelist said at the Library of Congress, "then our ideas lose their value as well, because they become authoritarian."
In an apparent case of retaliation by humiliation, Jerry Rogers Jr. was arrested for speaking out about a stalled murder investigation.
Peaceful pro-Palestine protests are protected by the First Amendment, even if protesters often use offensive or inflammatory rhetoric.
The Supreme Court considers whether and when banishing irksome constituents violates the First Amendment.
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