I am thrilled that my article exploring the STRONG protection that 1A law provides against govt jawboning is now out in @uchilrev.bsky.social. It is deeply depressing however that understanding the law of jawboning remains so impt today lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archiv...

Fun fact: the "true" in "true threats are unprotected speech" in First Amendment law comes from the Court wanting to ensure that the government could not go after hyperbole or "vituperative, abusive, and inexact" language in the political arena to prosecute people for criticisms of the president

For example from Gentile v. State Bar Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, (1991)

“That Rümeysa felt she had to return to Turkey to escape the shadow of state violence says everything you need to know about the state of free speech and academic freedom in this country,” said Ramya Krishnan, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute. www.bostonglobe.com/2026/04/17/m...

I can't keep track -- is TikTok causing young people to protest too much, or too little? www.nytimes.com/2026/04/14/o...

Absolute word-salad of a response from YouTube's CEO about the decision to ban Donald Trump and its content moderation policies. "We're doing the best we can and work with whoever is in power" is definitely reassuring stuff! www.nytimes.com/2026/03/28/m...

"Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" (Executive Order 14149) going well!

Chilling effects are hard to measure or document. They are what doesn't get said over here, because of some gvt action over there. But pieces like this are a small part of making visible what is obvious: right now, chilling effects are everywhere www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/u...

This is corrupt, yes, but the real reward and danger remains the transfer of control over content on the platform into the hands of political allies

Helpful to have my research agenda compiled into one handy dandy chart though

The article quotes a tech-transparency group "blasting" X for hosting this account, but it's actually a good thing that Americans can hear what Iran's leaders have to say, unfiltered by Trump. Seems especially important right now.

Famously, the First Amendment exists so that the press can freely flatter government officials www.washingtonpost.com/business/202...

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...

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...

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...

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.

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.

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...

The fact that TikTok remains available “makes a mockery” of the government’s earlier national security claims that the platform was “an urgent national security risk – and of the court that deferred to those claims,” @evelyndouek.bsky.social and @jameeljaffer.bsky.social write in @theguardian.com.

What has happened since the Court upheld the TikTok ban makes a mockery of the gvt’s claims that TikTok was an urgent national security risk—and of the court that deferred to those claims Wrote w @jameeljaffer.bsky.social abt why TikTok should haunt the Court www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

The "embarrassing, scandalous coda" of the Supreme Court's TikTok decision--new from @evelyndouek.bsky.social and me. www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...

The list of views for which you can lose your visa continues to expand, which is both a completely unexpected development and very free speechy zeteo.com/p/trump-revo...

the fact that this is the key quote that the Meta Oversight Board chose to end its Special Edition Newsletter marking 5 years I think says it all

What are chilling effects, and why is First Amendment law concerned with them?📍NEXT MONDAY at 12:30pm ET: Join our online webinar on chilling effects with @carriedecell.bsky.social, @evelyndouek.bsky.social, @stacylivingston.bsky.social & Jonathon Penney. RSVP: knightcolumbia.org/events/litig...

Can vouch for the fact that it is excellent and students love it

Want to learn more about chilling effects and why they matter to the First Amendment? Join our webinar with litigators and experts on Monday, Nov. 17, including @carriedecell.bsky.social @evelyndouek.bsky.social @penney.bsky.social @stacylivingston.bsky.social: knightcolumbia.org/events/litig...

every day thumbing their nose at the first amendment's promise of an uninhibited, robust, and wide-open public sphere www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

The primary and most pervasive form of speech suppression that this Administration employs is chill; it's pervasive but much harder to quantify than outright censorship. But stories like this must be happening everywhere. www.politico.com/news/magazin...

Vaguely remember there being some sort of concern about a government leveraging control over TikTok to extract user data and manipulate content, but anyway I am sure this is fine www.forbes.com/sites/emilyb...

I wrote about an under-appreciated aspect of AAUP v. Rubio. It is the first case of the Trump Era to explicitly identify and reject the primary and most pernicious form of speech suppression employed by this Administration: Chill. balkin.blogspot.com/2025/10/aaup...

I wrote about an under-appreciated aspect of AAUP v. Rubio. It is the first case of the Trump Era to explicitly identify and reject the primary and most pernicious form of speech suppression employed by this Administration: Chill. balkin.blogspot.com/2025/10/aaup...

The Trump Administration’s “Compact of Excellence” for Universities is... far from excellent! Indeed, it’s unconstitutional. In this post, let me count the ways. blog.dividedargument.com/p/the-uncons...