The law is unconstitutional as written—but it has also been used by prosecutors far beyond its specific terms.
The anti-Biden slogan is clearly protected by the First Amendment.
for saying "LGBTQ+" "Pride" message is "against our biblical doctrine."
Attempts by British lawmakers to erase online anonymity would lead to radical speech being pushed underground.
Facebook Oversight Board: "Fucking Chinese" Referring to Chinese Government Not Forbidden by Facebook Rules
"It is crucial to ensure that prohibitions on targeting people based on protected characteristics not be construed in a manner that shields governments or institutions from criticism."
Facebook Will Now Ban Criticism of "Concepts, Institutions, Ideas, Practices, or Beliefs" When They Risk "Harm, Intimidation, or Discrimination" Against Religious, National, or Other Groups
This includes "burning a national flag or religious texts, caricatures of religious figures, or criticism of ideologies."
Americans oppose restrictions, but report feeling less free to speak about political matters.
We expect British royals to favor muzzling commoners, but too many lawmakers feel the same way.
Calling a classmate a racist slur on Snapchat is offensive. It’s also protected speech.
But the "racial ridicule" statute under which this is happening (1) by its terms doesn't cover such speech, and (2) if it did, it would be unconstitutional.
The elected prosecutor (Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby) is claiming that the station's coverage of her is "blatantly slanted, dishonest, misleading, racist, and extremely dangerous."
"Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance."
Columbia University linguist John McWhorter on "anti-racism" as a new, misguided civic religion and his new book on curses, Nine Nasty Words.
New Colorado Bill Would Create Commission to Restrict "Hate Speech," "Fake News," "Conspiracy Theories" on Social Media Platforms
The bill was introduced by Colorado Senate president pro tem Kerry Donovan (who is also running for Congress).
Colleen Oefelein was fired by the Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency, and the incident illustrates the vagueness of New York law on this point.
"The Law School Acknowledges That the Racial and Gender References on the Examination Were Deeply Offensive"
A controversy at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Yes, the Ohio Court of Appeals held Thursday.
The more that big social media companies act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.
But such a ban would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, whether applied to the Confederate flag, white supremacist symbols, or whatever else might be labeled as "hate[ful]."
Richard Stengel published that argument in the Washington Post last year.
The subject of the new film Mighty Ira explains why social justice warriors are wrong to attack free speech.
Inspired by Germany's notorious hate-speech law, more countries seek to impose steep penalties on platforms that don't comply with their censorship whims.
(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.