This is just bad philosophy…. In terms of both being harmful, but also bad at the thing called ‘philosophy’ insofar as it is poorly argued.

Quite the opposite: legally, it’s entirely possible. Famously, Parliament can make whatever law they like. That’s, like, kind of the whole problem here — they could do it.

“We give you access to this platform that they’ve admitted will always make mistakes, because GAI isn’t actually intelligent. Look at how progressive we are — hopefully students don’t use it and make errors on their exams!”

This is a clear violation of 1A, and interferes with academic freedom. This is viewpoint discrimination. Of course, the argument might go that (state) University employees are speaking for the state (and thus this is government speech), but this argument is not persuasive. 1/

"In a landmark study, OpenAI researchers reveal that large language models will always produce plausible but false outputs, even with perfect data, due to fundamental statistical and computational limits." www.computerworld.com/article/4059...

Or, and I’m just workshopping this idea… they could stop wearing masks with no identification? Stop deporting people without due process? Stop deporting people to 3rd countries? Stop thwarting courts? Stop frustrating the rule of law? Stop using racial profiling? Because all of those sure seem bad

This is what I said to my wife and three kids who use Hulu and Disney+

They certainly don’t understand 1A, it seems.

The great free speech crusade continues

The fact that Matthew Dowd lost his job for pointing out Charlie Kirk’s hate speech, while Brian Kilmeade openly suggests we should euthanize the homeless and there is zero outrage, shows exactly what is terribly wrong with today’s political mainstream media.

Fox News co-host advocating for just killing people he’s deemed undesirable. And this is considered acceptable television?

Can anyone tell me what 'unfunded hobbyist research' is? Or does he mean 'any and all research that isn't given funding to cover it'? Because that sounds a whole lot like 'if you did not get funding, your research does not matter, and is bad.' Which is certainly an opinion one could hold, I guess

1. You may have heard of book bans before, but the new one in Alabama takes the cake. The Alabama Public Library Service has a new proposal that would ban—get this—only "positive depictions" of trans people. The hearing is next month. Public comment is open. Subscribe to support our journalism.

Faculty want to leave Texas, and are discouraging their students from staying. "Texas had the highest percentage — more than 60% — of respondents who said they wouldn’t encourage graduate students or colleagues to seek employment in their state." www.texastribune.org/2025/09/05/t...

Freedom of speech and academic freedom. Oh, wait. The opposite. First Amendment? Who is she?

Well, the new Banksy is apt

The state of constitutional law in the US is on a daily backsliding. Good luck to those teaching Con Law: “The law is whatever the shadow docket decides, because of the not reasons given.”

Internalized homophobia is here. Perhaps that’s too generous; perhaps they simply do not care about their own rights and others’ so long as they’re in a position of a modicum of power.

The draft is cruel; there is no evidence it will better protect women, cis or trans; it breaches Labour's manifesto commitment to trans people; it is unenforceable; encourages vigilanteism; and it is clearly inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the ECHR. We will challenge it in court. 2/2

People need to understand just how openly genocidal the rhetoric on the far right is getting towards transgender people. They're openly talking about eradicating us and forcefully mass institutionalizing all trans people. These are people with direct ties to the Trump administration.

i find this image so fascinating. it is both a literal example of authoritarianism but also a second-hand reproduction of the aesthetics of other authoritarian states. it's like a simulacra of authoritarianism whose purpose is to attempt to make the simulacra real.

Finally finished a much overdue book chapter on agential freedom, non-domination, deepfakes, and the first amendment. Now I have time to relax before term? No, don’t be silly. Now there’s marking!

Constitutional law 101: flag burning is protected by the first amendment. We have explicit case law on this exact issue. Trump, yet again, showing total disregard for the law.

May this portion of the dissent by Ketanji Brown Jackson haunt John Roberts forever and be the final word on his tenure as Chief Justice.

Having taught ethics for many years…. No.

The fact that the thing we're calling artificial intelligence *can't do math* and yet we're jamming it into programs that successfully *have done math* for decades, then warning people against using the AI to do math, seems like an excellent summary of where we are.

“States are agents of the federal government”? *lights syllabus on fire*

Well…. That’s certainly *a* decision one could make. It’s also a way to crush academic freedom.

Someone didn’t study enough humanities in college… Hey, my dude, your article is full of humanities stuff — philosophy, politics, logic. The irony.

i'm actually dying laughing at "baruck obama"

The contagion of constitutionalism by royal prerogative is spreading. It is deeply un-American and a sure sign of democratic rot. What is happening in Texas is nothing short of a national constitutional crisis in the making.

An observation: US public law scholarship is way too long. For so many articles, it's like the author has picked a topic and wants to tell us everything they think about the topic, rather than focusing on making an argument, telling an insightful story, etc. Even very prominent pieces do this.

No one could have possibly predicted this… Oh, wait.

Characteristically thoughtful analysis of the Columbia agreement from the Knight Institute. I agree with much of it. As they imply, much depends on implementation and interpretation, which is highly uncertain (and no doubt was drafted intentionally to be so). knightcolumbia.org/blog/what-th...

New from @anuragdeb.bsky.social, @lewisgrahamlaw.bsky.social and me on The Morrigan blog - The Smith judicial review decision into the participation of Northumbria Police in the 2024 Northern Pride is a jaw-dropping mess on expert evidence, standing and irrationality: dflw.ie/policing-pri...

Am reading a US feminist text from 1981 and -

Ugh. Having not yet read the judgment in full, my inclination from skimming it is that this is an instance of liberal neutrality — [insert criticisms of neutrality, especially on human rights issues, here]. Liberal neutrality is rarely deployed to protect minorities.

I, too, remember the part of the First Amendment that says “you can prosecute the press for reporting things.” 🥴

The first bit. That.

I would add to this, using my vast expertise in constitutional and political theory, that the ideal number of humans purposefully fed by the government to alligators is actually zero

This seems like Trump admin attempt to subvert the basic norms of democracy through disinformation and criminalization.

Reading this … it is just nauseating. And clear why they didn’t want Abrego Garcia to return or be free - to tell this story. Thinking about the men there - including Andry Hernandez Romero, who Michelle Goldberg wrote about months ago: www.nytimes.com/2025/04/24/o...

Alligator Alcatraz is a concentration camp; and suggesting/implying you’re going to feed 65 million people to alligators is quite literally suggesting mass genocide.

Sorry, are we not reading the same cases? Because, I thought the exact opposite of this when I read them.

Sympathetic to the view, but insofar as it permits for arbitrariness by the executive, it undermines RoL and is anti-republican (as far I can tell). If RoL is, in part, to prevent arbitrary power, then this seems to run counter to that insofar as it leaves open domains of arbitrariness.

As an allegedly 1A kind of person, I’m confused. 🙃

Sorry, isn’t the party that has been screaming about election integrity? And demanded that Trump couldn’t be removed from the ballot bc that would be anti-democratic? Now we’re demanding that candidates not only be removed from the ballot, but denaturalized and deported bc we don’t like democracy?

Cis white conservative gay man mad that queer rights organizations now represent more than just his interests; complains that he doesn’t get it.

see this is that bullshit I'm talking about. we keep seeing this pattern play out: - district court judge orders Trump administration to follow the law - Trump n em then ask Supreme Court to let em keep breaking the law - Supreme Court then grants that request ballsandstrikes.org/law-politics...