The Journal of Islamic Studies, a publication of Oxford University on behalf of the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, published a laudatory review of the Cato Institute book, No Compulsion in Religion—No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom. Written by Jacob Williams, a political theorist at Princeton University’s James Madison Program, the five-page review evaluated not just the book’s arguments but also its place in the intellectual landscape about Islam today.

Williams first correctly captured why this book was needed in the first place:

Read the rest of this post →

Religion & Liberty, a publication of the Acton Institute, published an insightful review of our edited book, No Compulsion in Religion—No Exceptions: Islamic Arguments for Religious Freedom. Penned by Nour Zerelli, a PhD student in Islamic intellectual history at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the piece aptly summarized the book’s key message—one also captured in its title: “Liberty as a Qur’anic Value.”

Zerelli first summarized the gist of the book:

Read the rest of this post →

Looks like someone has leaked details to the New York Post about a plan led by appointees of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to go after the tax exemptions of major nonprofits perceived as being at ideological odds with the Trump administration. These include George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); civil penalties and “massive back payments” are also envisaged. (Separately, the federal government is also pressing a criminal case against SPLC based on particular factual contentions unlikely to have a parallel for most other groups.) Treasury would be the lead agency in an attempt at mass revocation because it houses the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Read the rest of this post →

Most arguments for government intervention put the cart before the horse. They begin by asking whether a restriction might be useful rather than whether anyone has the right to impose it.

Liberty should be the default, and government intervention the exception. The classical liberal ideal of the presumption of liberty puts the burden of justification on those who would restrict freedom, not on those who wish to exercise it. The presumption of liberty rests on the moral equality of individuals. No person is naturally entitled to rule another; therefore, restrictions on peaceful action require justification.

A useful way to understand the presumption of liberty is through the more familiar presumption of innocence. In criminal law, the accused does not have to prove that they deserve to remain free. The state must prove that it is justified in punishing them.

The presumption of liberty extends a similar principle beyond the courtroom. People should be free to act unless there is sufficient justification for restricting them. The burden of justification rests on those who would interfere with individual liberty. The presumption of liberty does not mean people may do whatever they please regardless of the impact on others. It is a presumption in favor of people doing what they please with their own lives, consistent with everyone else’s equal freedom to do the same.

Read the rest of this post →

The Senate Commerce Committee this week advanced several bills that would radically restrict free expression, innovation, and privacy online. Most policymakers sincerely believe these bills will keep kids safe online, but the bills are dangerous attacks on online speech. The committee took up measures on both online platforms and AI; this article focuses on the two bills aimed at social media, gaming, and communications platforms: the SCREEN Act and the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). 

The SCREEN Act

The SCREEN Act won a 15–13 committee vote but was not reported out because too few senators were physically present to meet the quorum requirement, so we will likely see it again. It aims to keep minors from accessing pornography. But any platform hosting any potentially pornographic content must verify the age of all its users. The bill also targets virtual private network (VPN) users.

Read the rest of this post →

Number 28 in our series of occasional roundups on election law and policy:

• “When more than a third of the [House] seats see no competition at all, polarization and gerrymandering can explain some of the problem, but not all,” said [Olson]. And none of the other likely explanations “are exactly good signs for democracy.” [Eric Boehm, Reason] 
• Did the Chinese collection of American voting data constitute a huge security breach? States say federal authorities never notified them about it [Washington Post via ELB] Hard to discern any new resultant chill on relations with China [Phelim Kine, Politico] or with Russia, for that matter [Alan Feuer and Dustin Volz, New York Times] 
• Read the rest of this post →