Is anyone other than @techfreedom.org filing an amicus brief in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Meta (SJC-13747)? It looks like there's 1 week before the deadline. As a MA resident, I'd cosign a brief urging the Court not to create a regulatory regime that Meta can survive but small sites can't

If sandwich shops don’t start offering a sandwich named “the acquittal” then what are we even doing

Great to see how @brianlfrye.bsky.social and @jmiers230.bsky.social helping clarify #IPLaw issues around creating #LegalAi for #LegalResearch. ‘No One Can Own the Law’: Amici Come Out In Force to Support ROSS In Appeal of Copyright Ruling Favoring Thomson Reuters www.lawnext.com/2025/11/no-o...

There are a large number of Democratic politicians who insist that Jonathan Haidt is a reliable narrator and one who they should take their legislative cues from. They should be asked why they're supporting someone the Heritage Foundation is cheering on in their efforts to censor the internet.

These people are unashamedly evil and should be summarily guillotined

In about ten minutes, I’ll be speaking about why generative AI services should be understood as modern publishers—not products—and the First Amendment implications that follow. You can join the webinar here for free: www.eventcreate.com/e/the-great-...

Words can hardly capture how proud I am of my students. I'm so excited about this new student organization dedicated to the First Amendment and I'm honored to serve as their faculty advisor.

My co-founder and I just launched the First Amendment Law Society. In a time of rising censorship, we built space for law students to speak, dissent, and shape the future. Grateful to our school @jmiers230.bsky.social. Say it. Mean it. Make it matter.

I don’t need to explain why it’s wildly unacceptable for the military to be illegally privately financed by the president’s wealthy allies, right?

This is insanely illegal and incredibly fucking dangerous.

That's not "fraudulent use of deepfakes," that's FREE SPEECH. This prosecution violates the First Amendment.

Yeah so "fraudulent use of deepfakes" is not a thing. Wow.

This should be seen as what it is: a huge step towards ending free and fair elections.

Absolutely no way that this is about anything other than intimidation meant to aid the GOP. Everything that the DOJ has done since January 20, 2025, has made clear that it does not serve the rule of law or democracy. It serves Donald Trump and his allies, and them alone.

Wrote about why, even if you hate AI and data scrapers, Reddit's lawsuit is pretty damn crazy. They're claiming that getting data from Google (not Reddit) violates copyrights that Reddit doesn't hold, meaning Reddit can claim copyright infringement. It's ridiculous.

The poll watchers are back

Excuse me what? The RIAA is now funding NCOSE to file bullshit amicus briefs before the Supreme Court?!? That is way more fucked up than even usual RIAA nonsense. Let me explain...

It’s remarkable how Sora 2 now functions as a copyright-monopoly simulator, offering users a firsthand look at how IP maximalism chills creative expression in real time. www.404media.co/sora-2-conte...

This is exactly how you report on any story involving NCOSE. www.404media.co/openai-sam-a...

The specifics of this are extremely bad. DHS is using a tariffs/product importation law to demand Meta unmask the identity of an Instagram account that posts about ICE enforcement actions. The page sells no merch. Lawyers call it "wildly outside the scope" of the law www.404media.co/dhs-tries-to...

These are not my peers

What we have in America is a crisis of cowardice

Thomas ORKTRAIN #orktober

Ah I see why we aren't talking about this. The gun belonged to a DHS employee. Super.

The CharacterAI lawsuit is tragic. Full stop. No child should feel compelled to take their life. But MSM does a serious disservice by glossing over the fact that the child had easy access to a firearm. Anything to avoid the long overdue conversation about guns. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/24/m...

And not just "Big Tech" platforms on the website side! Forums and news sites have used Section 230 to defend themselves against lawsuits over comments.

If this is "journalism" it's really bad journalism that fails measure of what would be lost if we lost Section 230. It's vastly more than "downsides." It's any possibility of a free and open Internet. All ability to speak online will be throttled by the few companies who can afford to allow it.

The idea that §230 is some sort of giveaway to "billionaires" is just a blatant misunderstanding of what §230 is and what it does. Intermediary liability is a bad thing for everyone! A law that prevents it benefits literally every user of the internet!

I really really really wish more people understood this. Section 230 protects websites and *users.*

There are downsides to the current paradigm. The problem, though, is that in not taking the time to actually understand the root causes of the problems, you jumped on 230 as the key issue. It's not. There are plenty of reforms that could be made. Wrecking the internet is not a good one.

This is activism. Not journalism.

To suggest that Section 230 has only resulted in harms is activism not journalism. This purposefully ignores the *many* benefits that stem not just from the law but from the modern Internet it created. You can't tell an honest story if you're just blatantly leaving that side out.

Look, we get it. You hate social media. There's nothing really wrong with that take. The problem is when you're putting it out there under the guise of doing "good journalism" about Section 230 and the legal landscape of the Internet. Come on now.

You do know that the social media companies have been on a mission to repeal or curb Section 230 for a while now right? You would if you talked to the experts in this space who have extensively studied Section 230 and worked for these companies.

I kept listening to it and wondering how someone who spends so much time pushing for better journalism could violate so many basic tenets of journalism. He chose the outcome he wanted and then cherry picks emotionally manipulative stories to support it. He doesn't interview a single legal expert.

I'm a huge fan of @brihreed.bsky.social and his Question Everything podcast. I was intrigued when he announced his latest season would be an exploration of Section 230 and why he feels it should be repealed. I obviously disagree, but I try to keep an open mind. But the 1st episode is a disaster.

Before Advocating To Repeal Section 230, It Helps To First Understand How It Works Brian Reed's "Question Everything" podcast built its reputation on careful journalism that explores moral complexity within the journalism field. It’s one of my favorite podcasts. Which makes his latest pivot so…

IDK what to say. If you're writing or speaking about Section 230 and you're not talking to any of the experts listed below, you're not on a serious quest for insight or knowledge.

Ohio introduced a bill that is being touted as a the AI marriage ban bill which is cutesy but the bill actually regulates Chatbot outputs and "faulty" speech. search-prod.lis.state.oh.us/api/v2/gener...

In honor of spooky month, share a 4 word horror story that only someone in your profession would understand: "Google dropped its opposition." (Think about the fight against KOSA and other such garbage.)

Starting a fight in my Copyright class tomorrow:

AI is humanity's greatest satirical work.

I'll be at CDT Tech Prom this year! 👀🥂 Looking forward to catching up with policy friends!!

And @microsoft.com's MSN bows to religious fascism, whitewashing content from outlets like Christian Post that portray LGBTQ+ people as violent, controlling and focused on converting children. www.msn.com/en-us/news/u...

If TikTokers want less government interference, they should go ahead and switch to Rednote #ETTD

He did worse than ban it...

Trump just told young people “you owe me” for not banning TikTok. The President of the United States is literally bartering our First Amendment rights for political loyalty. H/t @kerry95.bsky.social fortune.com/2025/10/06/t...

This means SO MUCH to me as a junior scholar. Transitioning from corporate to academia has been a huge learning curve. Part of that adjustment is self-growth and a commitment to unwavering intellectual honesty. Thanks @davidsullivan.bsky.social !!

I'm speaking at AALS! January 7th, I'll be presenting my scholarship at the AI Legal Scholarship (Shark Tank) workshop. After, I'll join an excellent panel on IP pedagogy where I'll be speaking about using AI in the classroom. Hope to see you there! More here: www.aals.org