The 1A may not be the best vehicle for discussing the costs and benefits of professional licensing in general. But it does provide a basis for challenging powerful monopolies in states where there is little appetite for regulatory reform, like NY, as I argue here.
www.cambridge.org/core/books/r...
My thoughts for @knightcolumbia.org on what to do about the private as well as gov authoritarianism that helps explain why, even tho they are not broadly popular, the admin's efforts at ideological control have often been so successful...
For our Reconstructing Free Expression series, @genevievelakier.bsky.social looks at why the First Amendment fails to fulfill its anti-authoritarian role, and what doctrinal changes can be made to facilitate the creation of a more anti-authoritarian public sphere. knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-ant...
Lifting up a rich history of dissent from orthodoxy and perseverance in the face of oppression is a deep form of patriotism. Broadcasters should respond accordingly.
Oh yeah, what a great way to commemorate -- nothing more American than the government telling you what to broadcast
www.npr.org/2026/02/21/n...
You were really excellent, Ben -- thank you for your testimony.
I will be testifying at this panel also, along with @beidelson.bsky.social and Eugene Volokh. it should be interesting bc panelists are very far apart: Did the fed gov do too little to repress antisemitic student speech on campus after Oct 2023? or did it instead flagrantly violate 1A rights?
I reviewed Prof. Genevieve Lakier @genevievelakier.bsky.social's forthcoming Chicago Law Rev @uchilrev.bsky.social article on Jawboning for Jotwell! @jotwell.bsky.social
Check out my review: conlaw.jotwell.com/throwing-the...
- and, more importantly! - her article: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
surprising amount of chilling of dissent in this new era of tech companies and the government collaborating to stand up for free speech etc
I wrote about Trump’s ideological deportation policies and their implications for free speech, including on university campuses. www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v4...
After Mark Zuckerberg reversed course on many of the company's content moderation rules unilaterally and pretty obviously to curry favor with Trump, the Oversight Board released a statement essentially saying "oh how interesting"
Screen shot of a quote from an op-ed: "Meta is bound to follow content moderation rulings issued by its Oversight Board, an independent body of outside experts (though its efficacy has been criticized)."
The Oversight Board should absolutely not be a model for AI governance. Incredible it's still earning the company legitimacy dividends
70 pages on why here (& it has only gotten worse since I wrote this): papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/o...
dunno! i think a lot of the chill has unfortunately been very effective and productive; hard to quantify what we are not hearing, even if there are still many brave people speaking!
Extraordinary amount of time, energy and resources being devoted to chilling any and all dissent
Mark Zuckerberg's Return to his Roots around Free Expression continues
www.wired.com/story/meta-i...
This is a great paper. SCOTUS was not just wrong to uphold the TikTok ban but deeply, consequentially, historically wrong. Holmes and Brandeis are turning in their graves.
Everything that has happened since the Court's decision has only confirmed exactly why it was wrong and why the 1A should prevent the government having this kind of control over the public sphere
Apropos of the TikTok news last week, I have a piece coming out abt how the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban-or-sale law belongs in the First Amendment anticanon. It's not just wrong, but so wrong we should hold it up as an exceptional symbol of wrongness.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
One problem with advocating for censoring unwanted political content on TikTok is that you might get your way
Struck by how it is true both that the First Amendment is under perhaps unprecedented attack, while also being more invaluable than ever.
We're talking about it like it's just wrapping up a few loose ends, rather than the ongoing constitutional breakdown that it represents
Ambition countering ambition something something
TikTok coverage seems to have become somewhat numb to this, but worth remembering that the President simply refusing to enforce a *crystal-clear* law of Congress for over a year to instead broker a deal on his own terms, & Congress just shrugging, is very much not how this was supposed to work
SCOTUS enabled this. The First Amendment was intended to prevent this outcome by heading off its beginning. Its decision upholding the TikTok ban looks worse today than ever
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Almost as if allowing the government to broker the terms for the continued operation of a major communications platform is a bad idea and a democratic threat and something there should be a constitutional bar against
www.nytimes.com/2026/01/22/t...
“The effect of the court’s ruling has been to give our own government enormous power over the policies of a platform used by millions of Americans every day – a result that is an affront to the first amendment and a national security risk in its own right” www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
The import of this ruling: Foreign citizens in the United States—including green card holders—can be arrested for political speech and imprisoned for months or even years before being given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of their arrest and imprisonment.
SCOTUS maybe can't be blamed for not predicting exactly this, but the First Amendment was intended to prevent this outcome by heading off its beginning. Its decision upholding the TikTok ban looks worse today than ever -- as @jameeljaffer.bsky.social & I wrote:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
"The embarrassing, scandalous coda to the Supreme Court's TikTok ruling"--from @evelyndouek.bsky.social and me in @us.theguardian.com. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
The Supreme Court's TikTok decision was wrong, and developments since its issuance have only underscored how wrong it was. From @evelyndouek.bsky.social & me in @us.theguardian.com. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
