The Mahanoy v. B.L. ruling did not give schools or free-speech advocates the clear lines they may have wanted, but it did attempt to address some of the complexity of modern-day speech.
Journalists should be permitted to express themselves on social media. As this week illustrates, though, doing so can lead to a dilemma for their employers.
Free speech is a long American tradition – but so are attempts to restrict free speech. A First Amendment scholar writes about measures a century ago to silence those criticizing government.
The social media giant’s third-party review panel upheld Facebook’s ban on Donald Trump. A corporate governance expert explains why Facebook created the Oversight Board.
Philosopher Peter Singer has helped launch a new, pseudonymous journal for the discussion of unpopular views. Will this be a boon for free inquiry, or a way for researchers to shirk responsibility?
Imagine if Facebook’s content was hosted on a blockchain — across many thousands of ordinary computers — and governed equally by each of them, rather than Mark Zuckerberg.
It’s up to the courts to draw a line between free speech and illegal market manipulation. And the Supreme Court has never ruled on this specific question.
What to publish on incendiary issues is a complex matter, but journalists needn’t believe that not publishing, when there is a good reason, violates and inviolable right.
Fascists, neo-Nazis, anti-Semites and white supremacists have historically been agile adopters of the internet — and they know how to use it to their advantage.