Those who believe the state is better than the market at allocating resources will have the same attitude toward the marketplace of ideas.
The powerful defense of free speech Kennedy delivered in one of his final cases shows a path forward for a nation struggling with severe partisan divides.
In an opinion article posing as a news story, The New York Times launches an illiberal and wrongheaded attack on free speech. At least we know where they stand.
Janus v. AFSCME caps a Supreme Court term that is surprisingly of the moment, given how long cases take to make their way to the court.
It’s still early in the Trump era, and we really have no idea how it will all turn out. But to this point, the Constitution is winning.
The majority opinion in NIFLA provides crisis pregnancy centers a nearly impenetrable protection from government interference with their pro-life message.
A woman with the same name as the restaurant co-owner says she has gotten more than 400 phone calls after somebody publicized her cell number: ‘One of them told me to put the barrel of a shotgun down my throat.’
The Washington Supreme Court will retake Arlene’s Flowers and likely have to decide whether ‘bouquet’ is in the eye of the beholder, and which beholder’s eye matters more under the law.
This is an identical scenario to what the Left insists is a civil rights violation, dehumanization, an act of bigotry: for a small business owner to decline to serve someone based on differences of belief.
If Peterson can be tripped up by the most obvious and easily refuted rejections of his non-compelled-speech program, the very thing that propelled his rise to fame, what good is he?
University ‘bias response teams,’ and the speech codes they enforce, use the power of the state to suppress unapproved speech and control students.
In his new book, ‘Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech,’ Princeton professor Keith Whittington highlights a variety of compelling historical arguments demonstrating that free speech created modern universities as we know it.
If we no longer believe ‘that all men are created equal [and] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,’ LGBT activists will have unleashed far worse than a 15-minute delay in access to culinary confections.
Despite years of case law emptying free exercise, the Supreme Court has now confirmed that government cannot apply laws in a discriminatory way against religious believers.
The usual political labels of Left and Right cannot explain the exploding attacks on freedom of speech and conscience that are running rampant today.
The Supreme Court’s religious freedom ruling is so narrow it allows bureaucrats to violate your conscience as long as they’re more polite when they do it.
Don’t be fooled by the Supreme Court’s 7-2 ruling. A menacing view of the First Amendment lurks in the details of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Resistance to growing attacks on free speech and expression is evidence of how truly transformative President Trump has been.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision is a win. But what stops the state from cloaking its animus against Christianity and crushing religious freedom? Not much.
A refusal to make two homosexuals a cake for a gay wedding, when paired with an offer to serve them in any other way, is not some sly strike at an individual for his identity.
- The Conventional Wisdom About Millennial Suffering Is A MythDespite a sense of unearned victimhood, millennials havcontinue reading >
- Obama-Era State Department Official Provides More Evidence Of FISA AbuseKathleen Kavalec’s notes provide at least four more pcontinue reading >
- In Wake Of Federal Tax Reform, Blue States Scramble To Hide High TaxesDemocrats insist richer people need to pay more taxes. continue reading >