freedom of speech

The future of Facebook's treatment of political leaders across the world

Facebook has been moderating the Myanmar military's Facebook access for years. The military still used the platform to effectuate its coup. What can we learn from this failure…

The board made critical recommendations: that Facebook reckon with its own role in amplifying content and overhaul its approach to high-reach accounts.

The Oversight Board must grapple with algorithmic decision-making and whether politicians' speech ought to be governed by special rules, with implications for political speech…

The company’s inability to enact a clear, consistent, transparent content-moderation policy may lead the board to overturn the decision to bar Trump.

Since taking power, Myanmar's military has limited access to social media, and at times cut internet service overall. What can tech companies do to resist?

De-platforming is a window on the unequally distributed power and embedded assumptions that determine what content gets to stay online.

The First Amendment protects abstract appeals for illegal actions. But there can and should be criminal liability for speech that incites the likely and imminent risk of violence.…

The question at the moment isn’t whether the president could be charged with incitement to violence in criminal court.

The new administration, and the new Congress, should act more decisively to reform this broken system.

Fifth in series of top experts exploring proposals to restore and promote nonpartisan principles of good government, public integrity, and rule of law.

Significant First Amendment concerns are raised by the administration's sanctions against the International Criminal Court and against those who support the ICC's work.