Online Censorship

Corporate America shouldn't be bullied into withdrawing from a site where tens of millions of people spend hours every day.

What we have before us is a dangerous and escalating international trend of criminalizing the basic right to free speech.

One of the most important tasks for the incoming Congress will be to prevent soft governmental censorship.

Do Americans wish to live in a world where dissenters from prevailing elite orthodoxy face discrimination in every public domain?

By suppressing the voices of parents and detransitioners, social media companies are warping public discussion.

Why would BlackRock vote in favor of withholding whatever information the government doesn't want Americans to have?

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rightly upheld Texas' social media law.

Tommy Lee posted a picture of his penis to Instagram, and social media users are angry it wasn't taken down as quickly as images of naked women are.

Violent pro-abortion groups are targeting organizations and individuals who have committed their lives to helping women and children.

New whistleblower documents demonstrate the danger posed by the "paused"—but by no means shuttered—Disinformation Governance Board.

Claiming that it has a First Amendment right to discriminate against users whose views it finds objectionable, Big Tech challenged HB 20.

Big Tech companies have already used censorship to suppress pro-life advocacy, while elevating aggressive pro-abortion agendas.

It was only a matter of time before the Court would suffer through what has been the norm for pro-life activists for some time.

If you worked really hard, you might be able to come up with an idea as unappealing as a government disinformation board.

At some point, Washington will indeed need to stand up a serious, transparent and bipartisan effort to counter the phenomenon. It's already clear, though, that the Biden administration's new board isn't it.

Elon Musk's move on Twitter provoked weeping and gnashing of teeth not heard since Donald Trump rode to the White House in 2016.

Musk must clean house internally and completely revamp Twitter's recruitment practices.

There's one reason Elon Musk's Twitter takeover won't bring dramatic changes—a gaggle of Big Tech companies, not Twitter, control the flow of information at every network layer.

The coalition of elite dissidents is growing, and as it does, the power of the corrupt establishment fades.

Twitter can't seem to stop mixing partisan politics with business.

Social media algorithms feed liberals mendacious bile that makes sure they hate Trumpists too much to work with them on anything.

Public squares are a cradle for free expression where we, the public, can express approval or dissent, campaign or simply convene with friends with little interference.

When it comes to the Big Tech wars, the most fundamental question is a version of "who decides?"

A Finnish member of parliament has won on all charges in a groundbreaking free speech trial involving a Bible tweet.

What will be the fate of free speech in the United States? The answer is coming soon from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Even if you remove the liability shield of Section 230, you will still need another tool—a sword—that lets you hold digital platforms liable for their conduct.

"Just wanted to shed light on what's happening in Russia right now internally because it's honestly petrifying," the woman said.

Private competition, whether of ideas or products, needs public space. But there is no public square, no public marketplace, on today's internet.

One right-wing pundit said the Fox News presenter's ban shows the streaming platform is just "a communist echo chamber."

Twitter banning surreptitious audio and video recordings entirely would only remove information that offers a more accurate depiction of what actually occurred.