Thank you for sharing! Will take a look....
24.02.2026 16:50
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Thank you for sharing! Will take a look....
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...
Essential thinking on “institutional authoritarianism” @genevievelakier.bsky.social
Live stream of the hearing can be found here: www.usccr.gov/meetings/202...
Here is my testimony, arguing for the latter point: that the Trump and also maybe the Biden admin acted unconstitutionally in its response to the student protests securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder...
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?
And for an article explaining why nonetheless corporations like CBS often play along with jawboning, even when based on very thin legal grounds see: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
The statute is here (with the exemption) www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
Speaking of jawboning, this is a very effective example of the art. Or at least, it was until Stephen Colbert refused to play along. But impt to note: Brendan Carr has NO POWER to abolish an exemption that Congress wrote into the equal time rules. He is bluffing here. www.nytimes.com/2026/02/17/a...
I appreciate this thoughtful review by @leahlitman.bsky.social of my article on the 1A law of jawboning. Jawboning is the dominant mode of speech reg of the Trump admin. So it is impt to understand the signif (if underenforced) constraints the 1A imposes.... conlaw.jotwell.com/throwing-the...
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....
Every crisis is an opportunity, which means the time is NOW to figure out how to reform our system of free expression to enable it to better resist authoritarian repression of the kind all around us. Very grateful that @knightcolumbia.org is jumpstarting this impt convo about how to do just that.
"Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us .... The First Amendment... does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom." Keyishian v. NY (1967). www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2026/02...
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....
It's time to abolish Trump’s ICE.
An important behind the scenes look at how jawboning, the FCC, and the messiness of media regulation have collided in the last year. @genevievelakier.bsky.social has the definitive article on NRA v. Vullo and jawboning, a hugely important issues in Trump’s 2nd term.
www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/m...
Excellent op-ed by @evelyndouek.bsky.social and @jameeljaffer.bsky.social about one of the very worst First Amendment decisions by the Court in recent years, and its terrible contemporary implications
On the hit podcast Supreme Betrayal, @genevievelakier.bsky.social, @marktushnet.bsky.social, and Louis Michael Seidman discuss whether we need the courts to protect free speech.
But also bc the crucial Q here is I think to figure out what about the judicial vision of free speech is so wrong. It's clearly not ALL wrong/bad/pathological. This is what I was getting at: the duality of the current understanding.
I suppose bc when it comes to the 1A, it is *all* made up. The doctrine is not dictated either by text or orig understanding and virtually no one, other than perhaps Justice Thomas wants to change that (and he only wants so much change). So when I say IA, I always mean as judicially interpreted
Seems like an important duality for defenders of the doctrine, and its critics, to keep in mind
But there is no Q that the 1A is partly to blame for the dysfunctional politics that helped elect Trump to office; if also now one of our best defenses against his authoritarianism
This is not to say that a win for the challengers in this case would be terrible. I am persuaded by @rickpildes.bsky.social and Bob Bauer's argument that, given the deregulation of everything else, further deregulation in this case might in fact have beneficial consequences bsky.app/profile/rick...
But it is also true that the 1A is responsible for the flood of money into politics that has severed the political elites from popular opinion and produced a fragmented, radicalized, and cruel political system virginialawreview.org/articles/end...
On the one hand, there is no Q that the 1A provides incredibly protection against the Trump admin’s attempt to suppress dissident speech, assuming rights holders are willing to go to court and SCOTUS doesn’t do anything to mess it up
Listening to the SCOTUS arguments in the latest free speech challenge to campaign finance, NRSC v FEC, I am struck by the fact that the 1A is both a primary cause of the political hellscape in which we find ourselves AND one of the most powerful defenses against it
www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-f...
I walked two miles to a lunch meeting only to get stood up, BUT I listened to this on the walk, so it's still a win.
I had a very lively discussion with Mike Seidman and @marktushnet.bsky.social about whether we need courts to protect free speech. It was a very generative convo, in part bc we disagreed so much but share I think political aims, generally. Check it out: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/s...
I wish there was federal damages available for 1A violations. Trump should have to pay $$$$$$ every time he tries to intimidate the press in this way.
Monday 12:30 ET: The chilling effects of the Trump administration's policies (and jawboning) are widespread - how are they being challenged in court, and what is the state of 1A doctrine on chilling effects? An expert panel will discuss, including current cases AAUP v. Rubio and UAW v. State Dept:
