What is the true test of a person’s commitment to free speech? The true test does not come when he permits people to say those things he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he permits people to say those things that he deems offensive.
Abandoning objectivity—factual reporting—and spreading misinformation, no matter how popular, is not in media companies’ self-interest in the long term.
The new totalitarians demand that no one criticize their view of the world.
When entitled leftists declare themselves the sole arbiters of truth, it’s crucial that we all speak up for free speech.
Letting President Trump use the police power of the government to fight the Left is self-contradictory. “If the owners of a media platform do not get to decide who can appear on it, then who gets to make that decision?” Government force will not achieve freedom. It will only achieve tyranny.
With his historic statement against Communist China for the ideal of free speech and the United States of America, Shaq showed a prime example of the highest moral action. Leonard Peikoff once said that to save the world is the simplest thing — all one has to do is think. Shaquille O’Neal did exactly that.
The difference between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping is that Donald cannot command companies doing business with the NFL to stop doing so until every football player who has kneeled during the national anthem publicly apologize for “offending the American people.” China can.
The view that social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook are corroding our public discourse has become increasingly accepted wisdom, the starting point for a debate rather than the debate itself.
On at least some platforms, all speech should be free. The more that is blocked, the less we learn.
The Sanders plan would clear the path for any authoritarian to dictate whatever he defines as “real journalism.”
We increasingly live in a new “dark age” of economic ignorance, and even stupidity. Few things exemplify this trend as much as the call for price controls over the interactions of multitudes of people in the marketplace of supply and demand. There are few government...
The government has no power to keep consumers in the dark—or to prohibit the use of terms that consumers understand—in order to protect special interests from honest competition.
The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when others are permitted to say and publish ideas they deem offensive.
When you send your youngster off to college, you might not mind that they will have to walk on eggshells, respect taboos, snitch on fellow students for politically incorrect jokes and learn to use ad hominem arguments as a means to attack ideas they find...
Independent journalists provide facts that biased editors at the Washington Post keep in darkness.
Mark Zuckerberg wants government regulation of the internet content, not because it would somehow protect us against “harm,” but because it would protect Facebook against competition. Without free speech, we will become sheep. That is the reason we must condemn Mark Zuckerberg’s immoral plea and defend our freedom of speech
Watching this video upset me. Students and even faculty members won't let Dave Rubin speak. They constantly interrupt, shouting "hate speech!" and "black lives matter!" Rubin was once a man of the left. He even was a co-host on The Young Turks network. But then he...
Government censorship will only reduce the ability to understand the causes of people guided by anti-capitalist ideas.
Imagine that in 1946 the general-secretary of the United Nations had submitted a resolution to the General Assembly stating that Nazi crimes were so horrendous and despicable that the countries of the world needed to impose a blanket censorship on any public reference...
The more we get accustomed to settling our disagreements with words, even offensive words, the less we need to settle disputes with fists and swords.
Politicians aren’t qualified to regulate the internet. The free market under a rule of law is.
Once the leftists gain control, as they have at many universities, free speech becomes a liability and must be suppressed.
The assertion and repetition of “white privilege,” “the one percent,” “social justice,” “racist,” “gay-basher,” “LGBT-hater,” “gender insensitivity,” etc., have had numbing effects on private and public discourse.
The intellectual intolerance and resort to physical force to prevent speakers from addressing students represents a dangerous totalitarian streak among so-called “progressives.”