In attacking the representative over a small, unintentional slight, Donald Trump and the populist right are displaying bad faith.
Her critics are misreading the linguistic reality of America’s big cities.
Disagreement is central to our lives online. ‘Erisologists’ want to study it more systematically.
What if the government offered tax-free status to media start-ups?
Success in forensics is about making yourself vulnerable. Several former competitors accuse a prominent coach of exploiting that vulnerability to sexually harass students.
Increasing the ideological diversity of higher education as a whole, while decreasing it within individual institutions, would bring us closer to a fundamental and permanent political separation.
Why the HBO host is wrong that public shaming encourages public accountability
The president’s much-anticipated directive doesn’t do much.
Once callout culture takes hold, it never ends.
How a dissident movement almost broke through China’s internet censorship
As the Democratic Party shifts leftward, can primary voters look past the candidate’s fiscal responsibility?
White supremacists exploit the weaknesses in the social-media ecosystem as Facebook and Google struggle to keep up.
I spoke with Julian von Abele, who insists his words were taken out of context.
A high-school student’s $250 million defamation suit against The Washington Post is an object lesson in the perils of social media.
His nondisclosure agreements are draconian.
Russia’s 2016 election interference was only the beginning. New tactics and deep fakes are probably coming soon.
Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. is upholding a vital civic good.
I was the editor of the Rocky Mountain News when it folded in 2009. A decade later, I’m concerned that more local journalism will suffer the same fate.
The Supreme Court seems poised to affirm that it can be displayed on public land—but a great deal rides on its rationale.
President Trump suggests that comedy sketches making fun of him warrant “retribution” and investigation.
Her identity and motives are being unfairly challenged on all sides.
The conversation about Israel has become a toxic partisan firefight, bereft of insight or vision.
The Minnesota congresswoman has given credence to caricatures of critics of Israel.
The National Enquirer pushed the limits of journalistic norms—and in the process called into question the legal protections enjoyed by the media.
Readers weigh in on the ways that social media has changed our freedom to show different aspects of our identities in different domains.
It’s ridiculous to claim that the Covington Catholic schoolboys are a symbol of what ails America.
The internet once made it easier to slip from one domain to another. Is there a way to preserve that vital freedom?
What happens when live-streams become the new fireside chat
Democratic Representative Rashida Tlaib may have delighted the far-left with her coarse words for the president—but she’s also mirroring his style.
Facing pressure from the incoming Democratic majority in the House, the commander in chief swears he’s the target of “presidential harassment.”
Why the news is going back to the 19th century
Our culture is losing its ability to focus on the problems that really matter.
Too much media coverage of Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria treats indefinite deployments as the only legitimate option.
The civil-rights group is backing a test case arguing that New Hampshire’s statute violates the Constitution.
The Board of Governors rejected UNC Chapel Hill’s plan to build a $5.3 million building for the Confederate statue, setting the stage for a renewed battle in March.
The case for a new term that describes all sexual minorities
The filmmaker Deeyah Khan is the latest anti-racist to enjoy success by engaging, rather than shunning, people with deplorable beliefs.
The company may cede control of what it censors outright while restricting the reach of “borderline” content.
Jihadology.net is a valuable resource for researchers, even if terrorists make use of it too.
A prom photo has sparked a fresh round of debate over students’ First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court will rule on whether citizens can talk back to law enforcement without fear of consequences.
A progressive family in suburban Philadelphia refused to take down a “Black Lives Matter” sign when conservative relatives came to visit.
“WeChat is a monster. There’s nothing like it on Earth.”
If the U.S. government can prosecute the WikiLeaks editor for publishing classified material, then every media outlet is at risk.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan might not be able to permanently sideline the Saudi crown prince, but he could extract other concessions that bolster his own position.
CNN says in a lawsuit that President Trump’s revocation of the correspondent’s White House credentials violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Like text and audio, it can be manipulated and interpreted for political ends.
The European Court of Human Rights invoked “religious peace” as a reason to limit criticisms of the Prophet Muhammad.
The feature derails healthy conversation and preys on users’ worst instincts.
Tech companies are struggling to face a culture their platforms helped create, as trolls post racist, vile content in a way that camouflages dangerous people.
A human-rights court upheld an Austrian woman’s conviction for disparaging the Prophet Muhammad.
It’s yet another attempt by a government to use Facebook to sow discord in the United States.
A journalist wants to know who accused him of rape in a shared spreadsheet. What are the implications of outing or protecting his accusers?
What happens when reviewers spend more time focusing on the motives of authors than the merits of their claims?
Lawyers for the campaign asserted in court papers a right to disclose “even stolen information.”
Optimists and pessimists offered competing visions for the future of the First Amendment at The Atlantic Festival.
Eleanor Holmes Norton used a commencement address at Georgetown to argue that securing positive, lasting change in America requires letting all sides have their say.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a case over California’s regulation of “crisis pregnancy centers,” which try to talk their clients out of ending their pregnancies.