When did they know it?
The political fallout of WikiLeaks has passed, but the fury of law enforcement has not. More than four years after the organization published…
The Supreme Court on Monday will hear the appeal of a man who went to prison for posting violent rants on Facebook. The case will shape the future of what people can and can’t say online, and is being closely watched by the tech industry, domestic violence groups, and civil libertarians
As Emily Bell of Columbia pointed out in a recent speech about the disruption of journalism by technology, publishing has never been easier — but now it is controlled in a disturbing way by proprietary corporate platforms like Twitter and Facebook
Viral “news” sites are exploiting Facebook and other social media channels to make a buck off the ebola scare, but, for now, there appears to be no practical options to stop them.
New Zealand’s highest court has ruled that a blogger was engaged in journalism, and therefore is entitled to certain protections afforded to journalists, even though he was not affiliated with a traditional media organization
As the legal budgets of traditional news rooms keep shrinking, they have been unable to fight the public interest battles of the past. Will tech companies be willing or able to pick up that torch?
Some businesses use contracts that say customers have to pay large penalties if they say something negative online. A new California law turns the tables on that.
Police in Ferguson reportedly told protesters to turn off their cameras. The law is clear they have no right to do so.
Google is telling British media companies that it has removed articles from its index as a result of an EU decision on “the right to be forgotten.” Critics say the company is deliberately over-reacting, but it is just doing what it can to call attention to a bad law
Microsoft won the right to unseal documents in a case over an enterprise customer; the ruling is a major legal victory against the federal government’s blanket use of gag orders in its national security investigations.
A judge described Baidu’s blocking of Chinese-language pro-democracy sites as an “editorial decision” protected by the First Amendment.
Twitter says it is not only fighting the Turkish government’s recent ban on the service, but it is also fighting a request to remove a specific account that has been tweeting about government corruption, because it is committed to upholding free speech
Singer Courtney Love won a closely-watched court case that raised questions about how libel law should be interpreted when it comes to the free-wheeling world of Twitter.
Hunter Moore, who tormented hundreds of people through his nude photo website “Is Anyone Up,” was arrested this week. The feds appear to have finally found a way to stick him with criminal charges.
An appeals court has struck a blow for free speech and freedom of the press by ruling that First Amendment protection should be available to bloggers, regardless of whether they fit the definition of who qualifies as a journalist.
A studio published a Times’ critic’s tweet about Inside Lleywn Davis without permission — despite what some are saying, neither Twitter or the critic can do anything about it.
When can you sue someone for what they say on Twitter? A court case scheduled for January could establish a precedent — and clip some of Twitter’s free-wheeling ways.
Should Twitter users be held in contempt of court if they retweet information about a sensitive court case? The UK government is reminding them of the risk.
People retweet lies and errors on Twitter all the time. Are there special cases where they should be punished for doing so? That’s what happened in the UK, raising questions again about how to regulate speech on not just Twitter, but other sites where you can slander with a single click.
Facebook originally allowed users to post videos of beheadings, arguing that it was similar to a TV news network, but now the company has removed them — making it unclear how strong its commitment to free speech is.
Is liking something on Facebook a form of protected expression akin to putting a bumper sticker on your car? The 4th Circuit…
An incident in which a British journalist was subjected to hundreds of abusive tweets has highlighted Twitter’s ongoing struggle to balance its defence of free speech and the rights of its users with the need to curb abuse.
A woman in Britain who says she received hundreds of rape threats an hour on Twitter has criticized the service for not making it easier to take action against such abuse, and supporters have started a petition and are organizing a boycott.
Critics say Twitter is “bending” to the French government by finally handing over data to comply with the country’s hate speech laws.
Facebook has admitted that it failed to apply its policies about offensive content to some disturbingly misogynistic pages. But is this a victory for the social network’s critics, or just another stop on the slippery slope of censorship?
After a fan posted a video of a horrific crash at a NASCAR event, the organizer removed it claiming copyright infringement, but Google over-ruled the company — an example of a decision that happens all too rarely.
Being falsely accused of a crime like child abuse is a traumatic experience that has become worse with social media. Two recent incidents in the US and UK highlight the problems — and show America’s approach to libel works better in the age of Twitter.
An article at Jezebel identifies high-school students who posted racist tweets in the wake of the election, raising a number of questions about what we consider to be an appropriate response to that kind of behavior, and when the cure is worse than the disease.
Is this the great firewall of Russia? Free-speech campaigners oppose a new agency that is blocking objectionable content. But, so far, outlawed sites contain child porn and drugs, not political dissent.
When the man at the center of the ‘Twitter Joke Trial’ had his conviction quashed, it seemed some sanity had returned to the British legal system’s approach to online offensiveness. But that’s not how things worked out.
North Carolina wants to ban students from signing up their teachers for online porn sites or engaging in other forms of cyber-bullying aimed at school officials.
Most of the recent attention around WikiLeaks has been focused on the legal issues surrounding its controversial founder, Julian Assange. But we shouldn’t let that blind us to what the organization has accomplished and the critical role it plays as a “stateless news organization.”
Facebook is stepping in to support a deputy sheriff who was fired for “Liking” his boss’s rival. The case, which will determine whether a “Like” is like a bumper sticker, is helping to define free speech in the age of social media.
Twitter set off its first major public relations crisis this week when it suspended the account of a journalist who had been criticizing the social media site’s corporate partner, NBC, over its Olympic coverage. It is finally trying to fix things.
Twitter has restored the account a U.K. journalist who is at the center of a firestorm over corporate control of media and speech. And the tweet that landed him in trouble is still visible on his timeline.
July celebrations this week were marked by hot dogs, fireworks and three proclamations to preserve the revolutionary spirit of the interent. Here’s a guide to what’s going on.
As general counsel for Avvo, Josh King has responded to hundreds of lawsuit threats — all for activity that is soundly protected by the First Amendment. Here, King outlines three areas where he believes companies can take a stand to protect free speech on the Internet.
How many restless women wouldn’t fall for an animal-loving firefighter who sent gifts and liked to talk on the phone?
The National Labor Relations Board has bad news for employers that want to restrict their employees’ speech rights on social media. Employers can either update their policies to allow for the same types of speech the NLRA allows elsewhere, or they can find themselves in court.
Bowing to the reality of modern technology, Canada today said it is changing a 1938 law that forbids broadcasting election results before po…
The case of “investigative blogger” Crystal Cox reinforces that some governments are lagging behind when it comes to extending freedom-of-the-press protections to non-traditional journalists like bloggers. When anyone can be a journalist, how do we decide who gets protection and who doesn’t?
A new copyright bill proposed in the House would give governments and private corporations unprecedented powers to remove websites from the internet completely, on the flimsiest of grounds, and would also force internet service providers to play the role of copyright police or face penalties.
A new voluntary effort by the major U.S. Internet service providers to help enforce copyright restrictions and protect content owners from pirates, parodists and cheap teens who are sharing files could result in some folks losing access to their broadband.
Amazon has refused to remove a book from its Kindle store despite criticism from hundreds of commenters on the self-published title, which advocates pedophilia. The retailer says it doesn’t believe in censorship, and that customers should be free to buy such books if they wish.