Social Media Moderation Is Speech, Says Supreme Court
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
The Court is remanding these two cases for more analysis—but it made its views on some key issues clear.
Don’t unleash censors; restrain them more!
New bipartisan legislation would sunset Section 230 after next year.
The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.
Moral panic plus government power is an inescapably potent combination.
Plus: A listener asks the editors about libertarians and "reflexive contrarianism."
The mere act of publishing sex ads online is enough to send most potential free speech allies scurrying for the exits.
Plus: The real message behind DeSantis' abortion anecdote, midwives sue over Alabama regulations, and more…
Section 230, the court says, immunizes good-faith attempts to block spam—and RNC didn't introduce enough evidence of bad faith.
Plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden allege that federal pressure to remove and suppress COVID-19 material on Facebook and Twitter violates the First Amendment.
When it comes to conflicts with people engaged in unpopular or disfavored speech, too many journalists side with the feds.
Plus: Why don't journalists support free speech anymore?
A new documentary film argues that the second-largest website on the planet is flooded with misinformation. Is that right?
The senators say they're creating an "independent, bipartisan regulator charged with licensing and policing the nation's biggest tech companies." What could go wrong?
A new bill from Sens. Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal would stifle the promise of artificial intelligence.
How online “child protection” measures could make child and adult internet users more vulnerable to hackers, identity thieves, and snoops.
Expect the very foundations of the internet to come under attack from politicians and the mainstream media.
Plus: A new lawsuit in Montana over the state's TikTok ban, the economic realities of online content creation, the rights of private companies, and more...
The narrow rulings concluded the platforms aren’t responsible for bad people using their communication services.
Plus: Connecticut may exonerate witches, federal regulators are waging a quiet war on crypto, and more...
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a discussion about Congress' attempt to ban TikTok with the RESTRICT Act.
The latest bid to amend Section 230 would threaten free speech and creators' ability to monetize content while also subjecting tech companies to a flood of frivolous lawsuits.
A senator, a state attorney general, and a former congressman excoriated the law while getting much of it wrong.
The Court’s decisions in Gonzalez and subsequent cases could lead to impossible, incompatible consequences.
The Supreme Court’s newest member weighs in on the meaning of Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google.
Plus: The National Endowment for Democracy ends funding of conservative media blacklist, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear major internet free speech case, and more...
Section 230 helped the internet flourish. Now its scope is under scrutiny.
Gonzalez v. Google presents the Supreme Court’s first opportunity to weigh in on Section 230.
(Note that this case is about immunity when Internet platforms provide access to material, not the separate question about immunity when Internet platforms block access to material.)
The 2018 law criminalizes websites that "promote or facilitate" prostitution. Two of three judges on the panel pushed back against government claims that this doesn't criminalize speech.
A Supreme Court case illustrates the potential costs of making it easier to sue social media platforms over user-generated content.
There's a good reason why algorithms are still protected by Section 230.
The famous internet law is headed for the High Court.
The lawsuit alleges that TikTok's algorithm funnels inappropriate content directly to teens. That not only defies logic, but it is also antithetical to how a social media platform keeps users.
While "the 26 words that created the internet" have been under fire from both sides, two groups argue that the 1996 law is essential to the future of abortion rights.
The crucial protector of internet speech might have some cracks in its armor.
In a post-FOSTA world, Section 230 still protects websites from lawsuits over criminal sexual conduct by their users.
In his dismissal order, the judge cited Section 230, the law protecting websites from liability for user-generated content.
Does Section 230 shield YouTube from lawsuits about recommendations? Can Twitter be forced to pay damages over the terrorists it hasn’t banned?
Reddit users are protesting Texas' H.B. 20, which forces social media platforms to host speech they find objectionable.
Jimmy Wales talks about why his online encyclopedia works, how to improve social media, and why Section 230 isn't the real problem with the internet.
The case is now on appeal after a lower court said the ban on websites promoting prostitution didn't concern protected speech.
Plus: The editors respond to a question about the Forward Party.
A lawsuit alleges that the social media giant "tries to conceal the dangerous and addictive nature of its product, lulling users and parents into a false sense of security."
Looking back at how abortion advertising bans played out last century may give us some idea what the future holds for speech about abortion.
What happens when YouTube and Facebook can be held liable for their users’ speech?
Massie was the only House member to vote against a resolution demanding social media companies do more to track and suppress antisemitic content.
Comparing Elon Musk and Barack Obama underscores why entrepreneurs, not politicians, are the more effective agents of social change.