Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

—Shakespeare

I am deeply saddened by the loss of a wonderful human being, a loyal and loving friend, and an incomparable champion of liberty, the great Ed Crane.

Ed was an instrumental positive force in my personal and professional development. So many memories, so many experiences, such wonderful moments, either while sharing a panel at international conferences, having open discussion on various topics in his office at Cato headquarters, or being a guest at his home, together with his children and the great Kristina.

Ed, almost singlehandedly, was responsible for spreading the work of the Cato Institute, and the principles of liberty, prosperity, and peace, in my native Mexico. I am immensely proud of the incredible and lasting work we did in my country. The three-day intellectual fest “Liberty in the Americas: Free Trade and Beyond,” held in Mexico City in May 1992, brought together some 53 proponents of liberty across the Americas to discuss a wide variety of topics and challenges over the course of three incredible days—including Milton and Rose Friedman, who attracted unprecedented attention in the media among high-ranking officials, business leaders, and the community at large during the course of their visit.

Ian Vásquez had just joined Cato at the time, and we were both assigned lead roles in making the conference happen. Ian has since become one of my dearest friends.

Ed’s vote of confidence was a source of pride and personal joy—and the amazing success of this gathering was followed by two highly successful Cato monetary conferences, in 1994 and again in 2001; with three impactful visits by José Piñera during his tenure at Cato, supporting and advising the then-Zedillo government and Mexico’s leaders on the benefits of individual pension accounts; with Ed’s enormous help in a memorable Mont Pelerin Society regional meeting in January 1996 in Cancún, which I then had the opportunity to organize; with his kind invitations to join Cato Club 200 retreats in Playa del Carmen and Los Cabos; and so much more.

I always felt at home every time I visited the Cato Institute. It was always a homecoming—whether attending anniversary dinners (applauding Walter Williams!), or the fantastic biennial Milton Friedman Prize dinners, or all sorts of conferences where I had the privilege to speak, or even in impromptu visits, whereupon I would proceed to knock on Ed’s office door to say “hola” without a prior scheduled meeting. Often, after engaging in chitchat, Ed would follow with “…please join Kristina and me for dinner tonight (or this weekend) at our home.”

Again, so many memories, so many experiences, so much more that reflects an eternal debt of gratitude to the great Ed Crane. But two anecdotes, among a large number of shared moments, stand out.

In the fall of 2001, during the course of the Cato monetary conference in Mexico City, I was able to arrange an invitation to join then-President Vicente Fox for dinner at the presidential residence in Los Pinos. It was a small but commanding group, which included Robert Mundell, José Piñera, my dear friend Judy Shelton, Minister of Finance Francisco Gil Díaz, our central bank governor Guillermo Ortiz, Ed Crane, and myself, among others. We talked about Mexico, dollarization, free trade, pension reform, and other policy topics. All of a sudden, Ed finally intervened and uttered something to the effect of: “It pains me to think of the gigantic waste and exorbitant opportunity cost of not legalizing drugs—so much taxpayer money down the drain, so many lives lost, when will we ever learn?” You could have heard a pin drop in the dining room. No comments ensued, which to me, and perhaps to all present, was an admission that the truth had been spoken—even though sometimes the truth hurts.

My second memory, forever cherished in my relationship with Ed, was a visit that my late, great father, Roberto Salinas-Price, and I made to Cato headquarters in September 2011, just a year prior to my father’s passing. Our visit was to inform Ed that we wished for three of the most prized items in my father’s remarkable book collection to be contributed to and exhibited at the Cato Institute—first editions of The Wealth of Nations, The Federalist Papers, and Cato’s Letters. After a long, delightful conversation I still treasure, we said our respective goodbyes, whereupon my father turned to Ed and said: “Ed, I love the Cato Institute … but I am doing this for you, and because of you.”

Another dear friend of mine whom I met because of my relationship with Ed, the extraordinary Lesley Albanese, would later turn our family wishes into a moving and beautiful reality. Today, those three editions stand out brightly in the Institute’s library, with a plaque memorializing my parents—a testament to our friendship, our bonds, and our shared values in defense of liberty.

For this, for so much more, gracias, gracias, gracias, Ed. You were, always, sine qua non—to me, and to so many others.

We will miss you, now and forever.

Ed Crane’s passing marks the end of an era for the modern libertarian movement. Few individuals have done as much over the past century to build, shape, and sustain the institutions that give classical liberal and libertarian ideas a durable presence in American public life. As the longtime president of the Cato Institute, Crane did not merely advance a set of policy positions; he helped construct an intellectual infrastructure for liberty, one grounded in limited government, individual responsibility, free markets, and peace. Generations of scholars, policymakers, and policy advocates operate today in a space that exists in no small part because of Ed’s vision and determination.

What distinguished Crane was not only his strategic acumen but his unwavering commitment to principle. At a time when political incentives often reward compromise of first principles, he insisted that the case for individual liberty be made clearly, confidently, and without apology or trimming. He believed that both ideas and institutions matter and that changing the world requires both intellectual seriousness and organizational persistence. His work helped move libertarian thought from the margins toward the center of major debates over economic policy, civil liberties, and the proper scope of government.

Like any consequential figure, Crane was not without controversy. This should not obscure the magnitude of his achievements. The organization that he built with the help of the late, great David Boaz, and the ideas they championed will continue to shape public discourse for decades to come.

Ed Crane leaves behind a movement stronger, more confident, and more intellectually grounded than the one he helped launch. For those who value a free society, his legacy is not only a record of past accomplishments but a standing challenge to carry forward the work of defending liberty with the same courage, clarity, and conviction that defined his life.

Ed Crane was larger than life. I remember him for his wit and approach to management, for his adherence to principle, and for his intuition about people and politics. Ed’s leadership style attracted brash intellectuals with high IQs who didn’t come to Washington to make friends. People like him. As the Washington Post wrote in 1997, “the institute has managed to irritate just about everyone in Washington at some point.” He had a reputation around town as a charming rascal, a man who refused to play by the rules, whose puckish surliness somehow won friends on both left and right. One remark emblematic of Ed’s style was his quip that he had the new Cato building at 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW oriented facing away from the Capitol “so Congress can kiss my ass.” People heard this kind of thing all the time from Ed, and to so many of us, it was electrifying. Everyone, from interns to board members, looked forward to his bimonthly memos, which were consistently hilarious, incisive, and brilliantly written. Seriously—find your old copies and reread them.

Working for Ed was demanding, but it was also fun. There was a period sometime in the late 2000s or early 2010s where there were eight or nine married couples, including mine, in which the spouses had met working at Cato—this at a time when the Institute was about 100 employees. It was a tangible reflection of the “work hard, play hard” energy at Cato. Two of his five “tips for success” were “work hard” and “have a sense of humor.” He lived those principles.

He was unshakably committed to libertarianism. Ed would collaborate with Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey or the head of the Sierra Club, depending on the issue. Cato lost a lot of money because its foreign policy scholars opposed the first Iraq War, and it lost a lot of money a dozen years later because its foreign policy scholars opposed the second Iraq War. From the tobacco settlement to Fannie Mae, there are dozens of cases where Ed passed on big checks because he wouldn’t bend the knee or simply told the truth.

His political judgments were often insightful. For example, he and former Cato chairman Bill Niskanen rightly judged in 2003 that “neoconservatism has mostly been a movement with a head but no body. One rarely runs into a neocon on the street.” He also was tremendously sagacious about human beings in general. One former board member told me that when Ed started the first Cato Club donor event, he agreed to cut Cato a check but didn’t want to attend. Ed responded by saying, “I’d rather you attend than take your money. Come and I’ll pay your way in.” The board member went, and recounted to me how rewarding it had been to meet other people who thought like him, and how right Ed was in thinking it was important to bring people together in that way. Every donor to whom I’ve told this story emphatically agreed.

Ed of course played the central role in bringing libertarianism into the mainstream of American political life. But he also created an esprit de corps that lives on in Cato scholars and donors alike.

Ed Crane was arguably the most important person in building the libertarian movement we now know. There had been previous—and valiant—attempts by others, but they largely fizzled out for a variety of reasons: lack of financing, reluctance to change approaches to addressing issues, insufficient faithfulness to the ideas libertarians hold dear, and simple bad luck, among others.

Ed was involved with a number of libertarian institutions and publications throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, some under his direct control and some he oversaw indirectly. His lasting legacy, though, will be cofounding the Cato Institute. In 1977, libertarian ideas were in the ascent due to the failure of the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, and stagflation, all of which reduced public trust in government. In short, Cato was founded at a propitious time. That wasn’t an accident—it was ideological entrepreneurism at its best.

Cato slowly but surely grew and became one of the most important public policy institutions in the United States—indeed, the world. Ed’s vision of creating a think tank that would compete with others in the battle of ideas has been realized, perhaps more successfully than even he had envisioned.

Only 20 months ago, we lost David Boaz, Ed’s longtime right-hand man, the person who oversaw Cato’s policy work on a day-to-day basis. He made sure that our output met Ed’s exacting standards and became the foremost voice of his generation for advancing libertarian ideas through his own work. 

Without Ed, there very well may not have been a Cato Institute at all, and without David, there wouldn’t be the one we know today. I am extremely grateful to both of them for that and for giving me a shot to be a part of it. I will remain so forever. 

At this year’s Silicon Flatirons Flagship Conference, yours truly, Jennifer Huddleston, took part in a lighthearted debate on whether we should ban chatbots. The debate was far more fun with requisite Taylor Swift references supplied. But the underlying questions deserve more serious treatment. This is especially in light of Senator Josh Hawley’s bill to ban AI chatbots, introduced in October 2025, and similar proposals in various states, including California, Virginia, and Illinois.

In short, while every individual may have different preferences in their use or avoidance of chatbots, banning chatbots in law would have a number of concerning consequences for innovation and speech. In this blog post, we explore the question of banning chatbots a bit more seriously.

Banning Chatbots Would Likely Ban More Than We Think

Banning chatbots would not be simple. Defining artificial intelligence (AI) is difficult, and limiting it to chatbots does not solve the problem. Even in a lighthearted debate, we had to account for the many uses of AI that are often overlooked, such as customer service and specific professional tools. In legislation, this is even more difficult, as laws lock in static definitions that could prevent both beneficial existing applications and innovative future uses of a technology.

Concerns about chatbots are often tied to their use by vulnerable kids and teens, concerns about particular types of content, like when Grok generated non-consensual sexual imagery or content linked to suicide or mental health. But attempts to limit the technology only to “beneficial” chatbots or those with more specific applications may eliminate innovative uses of general-purpose chatbots or stifle future advancements we aren’t yet aware of. 

For example, an educational purpose exception might be able to cover Khan Academy’s personal tutor, but it doesn’t take into account how a student, teacher, or parent might use a general-purpose chatbot for a similar purpose. Or worse, limit our creativity in how these tools could be used to solve problems by deeming them acceptable in only a narrow set of use cases.

Additionally, such an approach certainly raises concerns about the government determining which applications individuals are entitled to access. This would easily set up the government to choose which innovators are winners or losers by making often subjective judgments about which products are deemed beneficial or low-risk enough to be allowed in the market. Unlike a car or other products, these decisions would involve questions around expression that raise concerns about the government making subjective determinations about speech.

In short, there is little agreement on the often vague harms of chatbots despite the headlines that they are making people “dumber” or leading to new mental health issues. Instead of trying to define chatbots and limit the technology at this stage due to the potential risk to some individuals, questions about technology’s impact on mental health or attention span merit more serious discussions about how these are playing out in society more generally.

What Would We Lose by Banning Chatbots?

There are, of course, concerning anecdotes about chatbots and vulnerable individuals who have gone down dark paths. It is easy to demonize a technology when we see such a tragedy. But there are also positive examples of individuals who have used chatbots as a form of connection when they might not otherwise have been ready to seek help from a human or were unable to access resources. Just as some individuals have had an extremely negative experience with chatbots, others have found them beneficial in ways previously thought impossible.

Some Americans from every background suffer from crushing loneliness, and it’s killing us. Some choose to seek professional help, facing stigma and risking discrimination in the process. Others simply can’t afford it. The cost of this lack of access is clear: suicide is the second leading cause of death for those between the ages of 10 and 34.

For many, chatbots offer a lifeline for those without strong support systems or access to professional help. They are available at all hours of the day, react without judgment, and represent a promising source of social support. Yet the impact of chatbots can go much further than just basic social support. For at least 30 people, GPT‑3 and GPT‑4 enabled chatbot Replika “stopped them from attempting suicide.” These are 30 anecdotes, and taken alone, they don’t represent something good or bad about chatbots. But these are also 30 Americans who thank a chatbot for keeping them alive.

In addition to being a resource for our most vulnerable, chatbots also represent a whole new frontier in accessibility. The world we live in can be difficult for some people to navigate. But many people have leveraged chatbots to help. For people with autism, ChatGPT can help them navigate complex social situations like arguments with friends or roommates. ChatGPT’s multimodal capabilities can also help those with visual impairments by instantaneously describing their environment and answering questions.

These uses demonstrate that chatbots are offering many paths to complete independence for the first time. Therapists and social workers are only available at certain hours of the day, usually for limited periods, and they can be prohibitively expensive. Chatbots, by contrast, are available on demand at any time of day. They can be accessed by one’s phone in almost any environment. And they are relatively cheap. These are just a few of the factors that weigh into people’s use of chatbots, but they make it clear that chatbots are actively changing the world in ways that allow people to live their lives with more freedom and safety—no matter how they were born.

We cannot focus only on harms without considering the benefits. This is not about going anecdote-for-anecdote on whether there are more positive or negative interactions, but about ensuring we know what the underlying issue is and how it compares to the status quo and its benefits. This includes the benefit of solutions and applications we could never imagine right now, as well as those that individuals are already experiencing. An overly precautionary approach limits a potential trajectory and eliminates not only potentially negative interactions but positive ones as well.

There Are Less Restrictive Means to Resolve Concerns

Just as with any technology, AI chatbots will be used or result in harm for some. This is not about debating whether bad things could happen, but about determining the best response and the appropriate government role. A variety of solutions exist that are far less restrictive than banning chatbots more generally.

First, we are seeing the industry respond with various solutions that allow responses to common concerns. Both Meta and OpenAI have announced various parental controls on their general AI chatbot products. Other industry efforts include using red-teaming type AI models to determine potential risks and identify ways to improve models to prevent the likelihood of toxic or problematic responses. Additionally, civil society groups like Common Sense and the Family Online Safety Initiative provide resources for parents or other users who want to understand the risk of exposure to certain content. Much like the internet before it, these market-based responses can help resolve problems in ways that fit both different technologies and individual needs without governments dictating what approach or specific controls are best.

If the government were to set policy, there are many steps that would be less restrictive than a total ban on a particular technology or application. Many of these would raise their own speech concerns, such as banning certain lawful, if distasteful, content. In many cases, the content in question, like non-consensual intimate imagery, is likely already covered by existing law, or those laws could be updated to ensure it is. While Jennifer has discussed concerns about mandatory AI disclosures, particularly when they are applied more generally, requiring a chatbot to disclose that it is a chatbot is certainly less restrictive than banning the technology entirely.

Banning a general-purpose technology such as chatbots to address more nuanced harms, or simply out of general distrust of technology or risks, would limit the expression and information rights of human users. As such, a ban would likely raise First Amendment concerns for both the designers and users of these tools, especially given evolving industry responses and less restrictive means available to resolve potential safety or other compelling government concerns.

Conclusion

A chatbot ban would ignore the various benefits of this technology that can extend far beyond writing silly poems. As with any tool, there is a potential for abuse, misuse, and harm; however, a ban or over-regulation not only eliminates any potential risks but also benefits. Banning a technology that reflects its creators’ and users’ expression rights also raises significant First Amendment concerns, given a variety of solutions that have only begun to be deployed and represent less restrictive means of resolving these issues.

When it comes to the Winter Olympics, I’m mostly interested in figure skating events. But when I saw that Team USA luger Ansel Haugsjaa is an alumnus of one of the schools I’ve been planning to feature, I was excited. Earlier this week, he and his doubles partner surprised the luge world by taking the top spot in the first of two runs—setting a track record in the process—before ultimately landing in sixth place overall. Reading his story, it seemed like this would be the perfect week to feature Sudbury Valley School.

Sudbury Valley in Framingham, Massachusetts, is not like most schools. Opened in 1960, it is a fully democratic, self-governing school where students essentially run everything. The rules, the schedule, the hiring of staff, and even which holidays to take—all of it goes through the school meeting, a governing body that includes every student and staff member.

While it sounds a bit crazy to outsiders, it’s a way of life for Francesca Matisoo. She attended Sudbury Valley from 1992 until she graduated in 2007. Her father has been on staff since 1988. Her husband, brother, and sister-in-law are alumni. And both her kids, now six and nine, attend. “I totally drank the Kool-Aid,” she says. 

The school serves about 60 students ages 4 to 19, and every one of them has an equal vote. The school meeting is the main governing body, but there are smaller committees and corporations that manage specific things, such as the library, arts and crafts, and music equipment. “And then we have a judicial committee for managing disputes between school meeting members,” Francesca says. “That is a mandatory service. So it’s one month of service for every age group. So every month there’s one student from each age group that represents sort of a jury of their peers.”

There’s no set curriculum and no required subjects. To comply with compulsory education laws, students must be there for a minimum of five hours a day, but they can choose which five hours between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

A day might start with a student finding their friend group and then negotiating how to spend the morning. Maybe it’s sewing. Maybe it’s a computer game. Maybe it’s heading outside. “Because everything is completely self-governed, there’s not really a typical day,” notes Francesca. “Although I would say for most people, their day includes finding their friends and sort of figuring out what everybody’s up to and kind of really checking in with yourself and seeing how and where you want to spend your time in that moment.” 

Sudbury Valley has an open campus policy that operates through a certification process. Under the age of eight, they can only leave campus with a parent. Between 8 and 13, they must be certified in the open campus policy. They must have a buddy and a charged cell phone with the school’s number saved, and there are rules about where they’re allowed to go. From 13 on, certification and sign-out are still required, but students are largely free to come and go.

Francesca says they have certification processes on “pretty much everything that we do,” which is central to how the school functions. “I think of the certification processes as one of the ways that we are able to have so many different ages in one building and treat them all the same,” she explains. “Because of the fact that everybody has read and understood the rules and knows what the repercussions are, everything is very, very clear and upfront.”

As for academics, kids take the lead, and adults are there for support. For example, if a student decides they want to prep for the SAT, they find a staff member who can help them make a plan. According to Francesca, there are opportunities to learn anything they’re interested in. “For a kid who’s really interested in something and wants more resources for that particular interest, one of the things that they would probably do is go to the school meeting and create a corporation,” she says.

They also bring in outside experts when it makes sense. They’ve had classes in karate, driver’s ed, dance, and different musical instruments. There have also been woodworking and hairdressing corporations when there was enough interest. “The corporations sort of come and go as there’s need within the community,” she says. “We’d really be open to pretty much whatever if there was a need within the community and if there was really interest within the kids.”

Sudbury-model schools exist throughout the US and internationally, in Ireland, England, Spain, Japan, and elsewhere, though there’s no central registry tracking them all. Francesca would like more cohesion, as it would be a valuable resource for families interested in the model.

It’s probably not a surprise to say the school has skeptics. Francesca says she’s been dealing with that for as long as she’s been involved with the school, so she faces it head-on: “People are like, ‘there’s no way that that works, there’s no way that that’s a school, there’s no way that kids learn anything.’ And I’m sort of like, okay, well you’re literally having a conversation with somebody who went there, so you tell me.”

For anyone genuinely curious, she points them to the school’s website, published materials, and open houses. She recommends they read on their own and then come back to her with any questions. If they’re still interested, she encourages them to come for a visit. “I think this philosophy is very challenging to grasp on paper. And when you sort of see the interactions between students and staff and get to experience the community, that’s when things sort of click a little bit more.”

Francesca realizes Sudbury Valley may not work for everyone, and she doesn’t push parents who aren’t on board to change their minds. “Realistically, if it’s not a good fit for your family, it’s not a good fit for your family. Whether your child would benefit from it or not is no longer the question, because you have to be able to trust your kid to be here and govern themselves all day long,” she says.

Looking at the big picture, Francesca notes how odd society’s approach to education is. “I’ve never really understood how there’s this one-size-fits-all philosophy for education in a world where literally nothing is one-size-fits-all,” she says. For a long time, she adds, people have been considered crazy for pursuing alternative educational models for their kids. But she thinks that’s changing as families increasingly take advantage of new learning opportunities. 

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson recently addressed a letter to Apple CEO Tim Cook to suggest that the Apple News product may be in violation of the FTC Act.

Apple’s crime?

Its Apple News product, which curates news from a variety of sources, has “systematically promoted articles from left-wing news outlets and suppressed news articles from more conservative publications,” including recently not featuring “a single article from any American conservative-leaning news sources.”

The FTC’s allegations of bias, even if true, are ultimately irrelevant. The FTC has no authority to regulate the speech that Apple News chooses to curate. This is core First Amendment territory that even the FTC is forced to acknowledge. Ferguson writes that the “First Amendment protects the speech of Big Tech Firms” and that the “FTC is not the speech police; we do not have the authority to require Apple or any other firm to take affirmative positions on any political issue, nor to curate new articles based on the perceived ideological or political viewpoint of the article or publication.”

If Chair Ferguson stopped there, perhaps we could appreciate that the FTC recognized its limits and its respect for the First Amendment’s protections for platforms to exercise editorial control over the speech they collate and organize.

But Chair Ferguson did not stop there. Instead, the Chair attempts an end run around the First Amendment by accusing Apple News’ curation practices of violating the FTC Act for being an unfair or deceptive trade practice. But this attack is predicated on a highly flawed theory that somehow the FTC has the ability to determine when the curation and moderation decisions of platforms are “unfair or deceptive.”

Specifically, Chair Ferguson suggests that curation practices of Apple News may be unfair or deceptive because they are not in line with Apple’s terms of service. But Apple News’ Terms of Service explicitly state—in all capital letters no less—that:

THE SITE AND ITS CONTENT ARE DELIVERED ON AN “AS-IS” AND “AS-AVAILABLE” BASIS… APPLE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF ACCURACY, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE… YOUR SOLE REMEDY AGAINST APPLE FOR DISSATISFACTION WITH THE SITE OR ANY CONTENT IS TO STOP USING THE SITE OR ANY SUCH CONTENT.

I’m not sure Apple could have been clearer, and it would be an insult to the FTC Chair and his staff to suggest that they were incapable of finding this. The FTC letter specifically cites this document, so the FTC must know that Apple makes no promises to include a certain amount of conservative, libertarian, or any other type of content. Instead, it seems the FTC is ignoring what is in front of them to justify its baseless accusation of an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

Perhaps recognizing that this argument is not worth the paper it is printed on, the letter also suggests that Apple’s curation may still constitute an unfair or deceptive trade practice by failing to be “consistent with the reasonable expectation of consumers.” But this is no stronger than the first accusation. Do all media platforms now need to affirmatively declare their exact editorial standards or else be at risk of misleading their readers and users? Is a platform allowed to change its editorial positions or else risk being at odds with the reasonable expectations of users?” Must a bookstore justify each editorial decision about the books it stocks to the FTC? No organization forfeits its First Amendment rights because the FTC believes that users may have differing expectations about how that organization curates content.

Consumers who do not like the editorial decisions of a media or social media platform are free to use another. If someone does not like the New York Times’s editorial stance, they are free to check out the Wall Street Journal or the New York Post. If a user does not like how Apple News curates content, they can use other apps that curate content, such as GroundNews, or go straight to the outlets they prefer.

The FTC claims this work is somehow combating efforts to “censor content for ideological reasons.” But the FTC has it completely backwards, as they are the state actor working to force conformity to its ideological viewpoint. The FTC letter cites its “Request for Public Comment Regarding Technology Platform Censorship” as another example of this work. But that just shows that the FTC has deeply confused what censorship is. And Chairman Brendan Carr of the FCC also praised the FTC letter, showing how widely this corrupted view of free expression has spread among the leadership of other agencies as well.

Could Apple better serve its customers by including more conservative viewpoints? Maybe. Having worked on the content policy team at Meta, my experience is that large technology platforms have historically favored left-wing viewpoints in their curation and moderation decisions. But those decisions are not censorship; they are the core expressive rights of companies. Censorship is when the government, through force or threat of force, strips its citizens and companies of the right to express themselves as they wish.

The FTC and other government agencies should stop their censorial attempts to control online speech.