Gottheimer and Lawler File Resolution, Encouraging Platforms to Censor Online Commentators
May 4, 2026
Jawboning got its own House resolution and this time the targets have names.
Jawboning got its own House resolution and this time the targets have names.
The unanimous decision revives a fight over donor lists that the Court has been losing patience with since 1958.
The regulator’s list of duties runs far beyond child safety into foreign interference, false communications, and public-order speech.
The bill that died with Trudeau’s election call is back, and so is the advisory panel that wrote it.
Courts and civil liberties groups have spent years warning that the DMCA’s subpoena process is a censorship shortcut disguised as copyright enforcement.
After centuries of prosecuting people for what they say, Britain may be closer than it has ever been to making free speech an actual legal right.
The British government scraps non-crime hate incidents. The replacement system does everything the old one did, just with a fresher coat of bureaucratic paint.
Germany’s draft deepfake law under Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig could criminalize political memes with up to two years in prison.
The British Prime Minister sketches a future where online speech rules update as routinely as tax bracket, with scrutiny treated as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.
The FTC just told the four companies that move America’s money to stop picking sides, without actually doing anything about it yet.
Spain’s government will now grade tech companies on speech removal twice a year, with the same officials defining what counts as hate setting the scores.
The episode handed British regulators the pretext they’d been waiting for to wire censorship directly into the software itself.
The man who called gender ideology education “child abuse” now owes $750,000 for saying so; not in a courtroom, but in a quasi-judicial hearing where no jury decided and no criminal standard applied.
The legal question is centered around how the idea of safety is used to let the government delete speech that breaks no laws.
The party could ask Germans to show their papers before they can post a tweet.
The country’s Supreme Court created the crime she’s accused of without asking Congress, and now a veterinary student faces a decade in prison for arguments she made on Twitter in 2020.
In Washington, they watched a continent trade liberty for censorship and call it progress. Now, that threat is coming across the Atlantic in the form of online censorship laws.
By redefining hate as a matter of perception, the new law risks making emotional response the measure of criminal guilt.
The police visit became a stark example of how government power can be used to silence protected First Amendment speech.
The decision marks a rare legal victory for satire in a climate where political humor increasingly faces judicial scrutiny.
Reports of AI-made bikini photos have become the pretext for expanding censorship beyond explicit content into the merely suggestive.
Former childcarer warned that repost joking about Trump and Starmer could violate release terms, probation letter reveals.
Australia’s hate law rewrites justice into a guessing game where imagined offense can cost you five years of your life.
The system demands machines make moral calls in real time.
Jawboning got its own House resolution and this time the targets have names.
The unanimous decision revives a fight over donor lists that the Court has been losing patience with since 1958.
The regulator’s list of duties runs far beyond child safety into foreign interference, false communications, and public-order speech.
The bill that died with Trudeau’s election call is back, and so is the advisory panel that wrote it.
Courts and civil liberties groups have spent years warning that the DMCA’s subpoena process is a censorship shortcut disguised as copyright enforcement.
After centuries of prosecuting people for what they say, Britain may be closer than it has ever been to making free speech an actual legal right.
The British government scraps non-crime hate incidents. The replacement system does everything the old one did, just with a fresher coat of bureaucratic paint.
Germany’s draft deepfake law under Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig could criminalize political memes with up to two years in prison.
The British Prime Minister sketches a future where online speech rules update as routinely as tax bracket, with scrutiny treated as an obstacle rather than a safeguard.
The FTC just told the four companies that move America’s money to stop picking sides, without actually doing anything about it yet.
Spain’s government will now grade tech companies on speech removal twice a year, with the same officials defining what counts as hate setting the scores.
The episode handed British regulators the pretext they’d been waiting for to wire censorship directly into the software itself.
The man who called gender ideology education “child abuse” now owes $750,000 for saying so; not in a courtroom, but in a quasi-judicial hearing where no jury decided and no criminal standard applied.
The legal question is centered around how the idea of safety is used to let the government delete speech that breaks no laws.
The party could ask Germans to show their papers before they can post a tweet.
The country’s Supreme Court created the crime she’s accused of without asking Congress, and now a veterinary student faces a decade in prison for arguments she made on Twitter in 2020.
In Washington, they watched a continent trade liberty for censorship and call it progress. Now, that threat is coming across the Atlantic in the form of online censorship laws.
By redefining hate as a matter of perception, the new law risks making emotional response the measure of criminal guilt.
The police visit became a stark example of how government power can be used to silence protected First Amendment speech.
The decision marks a rare legal victory for satire in a climate where political humor increasingly faces judicial scrutiny.
Reports of AI-made bikini photos have become the pretext for expanding censorship beyond explicit content into the merely suggestive.
Former childcarer warned that repost joking about Trump and Starmer could violate release terms, probation letter reveals.
Australia’s hate law rewrites justice into a guessing game where imagined offense can cost you five years of your life.
The system demands machines make moral calls in real time.