Our book has a cover and I love it! Coming in April 2026.

The webpage for our forthcoming book! www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/...

same

Have you been sent here from another planet to destroy me?

Countries routinely use hate speech laws to punish political dissent and criticism of public officials.

ah, I’ve missed Bluesky

It’s happening.

It doesn’t need to be this way.

The fourth edition of Cybersecurity Law will be published on Oct. 14! A new chapter on Internet of Things, along with many new sections on topics such as CIRCIA, the SEC cybersecurity regs, geofence warrants, and the impact of Van Buren on CFAA litigation.

So this is concerning, especially because last year SCOTUS denied cert in a case challenging the constitutionality of criminal defamation laws. www.foxnews.com/us/proposed-...

So this happened last night.

Pretty amazing that 60 Minutes does an entire segment about Germany prosecuting people for online posts and does not include even one voice raising free speech concerns. The segment looks like it was produced by the German government. www.cbsnews.com/news/policin...

Who knows if TikTok will remain back online or who will own it in the long run. But Friday’s Supreme Court opinion will cause enduring damage to the First Amendment.

Still amazed that SCOTUS didn’t even try to hide the censorship motivation.

You realize that you are saying this on social media?

This free speech mess was brought to you by all three branches of government. Great job, guys.

There is another important TikTok case at SCOTUS. TikTok likely will file a cert petition in Anderson v. TikTok, a Third Circuit opinion that narrowly construed Section 230. TikTok has retained Paul Clement and received an extension to file until Feb. 20.

Breyer’s latest HLR article reminds me why I am thankful for the writing styles of Kagan and Barrett.

Someone should write a book about why this is wrong.

Francisco did an excellent job but it really seems like TikTok will lose and it won’t be close.

I’ll allow

A reminder that the Jan. 10 Supreme Court argument is not the only incredibly important TikTok issue at the Court. TikTok has until Jan. 21 to file a cert petition in the Anderson case, in which the Third Circuit sharply diverged from other circuits’ interpretation of Section 230.

The international version of TikTok is unavailable in China because the Chinese government heavily censors speech. Not sure if this should be the model for US tech policy.

I will permit it if someone says that a group of fifth graders singing Wicked songs at the top of their lungs when he is trying to work is like shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Justice Robert Jackson, in a dissent. Fun fact: The majority opinion from which he dissented would be used by the Supreme Court in 1963 to overturn the convictions of 187 African American students who had peacefully protested segregation.

Our essay is in today’s WSJ print edition!

From more than 500 WSJ commenters, I have learned that there are no free speech problems when the government uses vague national security concerns to force the shutdown of a speech platform used by 170 million Americans.

The 10 y/o is having a bit too much fun reading the hundreds of furious comments on our WSJ article. She especially likes the calls to deport me. But she also wants to create a wsj.com login so she can “roast” the commenters. So I consider that a parenting win.

Lots of anger in the comments section, including a call to deport me to China. But this one really hurt.

In the Wall Street Journal, @mchangama.bsky.social and I explain why a TikTok ban would violate America’s free speech tradition. www.wsj.com/politics/pol...

Judge Davila *really* did not want to strike down the CA minor personalized social media feed law.

Indeed I have. Canada’s laws manage to be both unreasonable and ineffective.

Absolutely disagree with that. Rather than jailing people for such odious speech, use your own speech rights to prove them wrong.

I’ll take the U.S. free speech standard over the German standard any day please.

No correction published yet.

I’m on episode 6, and it is pretty clear that the Squid Game writers absolutely hate Section 230.

Now the NY Times is just trolling me.

Not every first-year law student

While cleaning my home office and sorting through the stacks of books, I found this in a copy of The Reprieve that I bought in a used bookstore in Ann Arbor in the 90s. I prefer reading on Kindle now, but I sure miss things like this.

Cleaning out my home office for the first time in more than a decade because we get new carpet tomorrow. Realizing that more half of the many boxes that pack the room contain nothing more than unopened law review prints.

The most obnoxious player in Squid Game 2 is Contestant 230.

Who’s on Third: The Amendment That Defined American Freedom at Home

Yes. Yes.

I’m quoted in the Cato Institute’s amicus brief in the Supreme Court’s TikTok case.

Heckuva “to be sure” graf in the government’s brief in the TikTok case.

This line of reasoning, in a TikTok amicus brief from former national security officials, would be incredibly dangerous if adopted by SCOTUS. It would give the government wide latitude to claim “national security” in a quest to suppress speech.

This TikTok amicus brief from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies makes me wonder how you defend democracies while allowing the government to shut down speech platforms.

How to honestly and accurately answer this question if I don’t have any items under my cart.

The government should prohibit 10-year-olds from having iPads. Because when 10-year-olds get iPads, they immediately go to Amazon and do dramatic readings of the negative user reviews of their father’s books.