Case Disclosed

According to a CAC report, between April to June of this year, the agency revoked over 3,918 ICP licenses (permits required for Chinese-based websites to operate in China), revoked over 810,000 user accounts on various websites, issued warnings to 172 of the 443 websites it has investigated, and transferred 316 cases to Chinese police authorities for criminal investigations.

Who are the arbiters of free speech? As voices clamor to be heard online, the answer is, increasingly, the giants of social media.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the manner in which a New York law prohibits merchants from imposing credit card surcharges amounts to a regulation of their speech.

Few so accurately predicted the era of “alternative facts” than Orwell, who had this to say: “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

The Internet has a long memory. When someone objects to material posted online—a critical blog post or a harsh Yelp review, for example—it can be hard to have it removed.

What limits does the Constitution place on Congress’s power to subpoena communications between private actors and state attorneys general? That question lies at the heart of an ongoing controversy between nine science advocacy organizations, several state attorneys general, and the House Committee on Science, Space & Technology’s Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX). The controversy arose last summer after the Union of Concerned Scientists (“UCS”) and several news organizations published reports revealing that dfossil fuel companies understood the risks of climate change many decades ago. Rather