"If TikTok’s logic stands, it could usher in an era of unchecked government suppression of speech. So long as the government proffers a sufficient content-neutral purpose, TikTok instructs that courts may discount content-based motives."

This is such a disappointing story from NYT (go figure). Not too long ago, the same paper was arguing in front of the Supreme Court for permission to publish the Pentagon Papers. Now they're begging the President to ban a dance app that once offended him. archive.is/2025.08.08-1...

We are hiring a Privacy Counsel for TikTok's Americas Public Policy team! This is a great opportunity to work on a unique set of privacy issues at a pivotal moment for TikTok. lnkd.in/eYQgKxzb

NEW: The little-known consulting firms that tell colleges what kind of aid and discounts to offer to each individual student. Whenever I explain this to people out loud, their jaws hit the floor. I finally wrote it down. Happy May 1 decision day to all who celebrate! www.nytimes.com/2025/05/01/b...

We’re going to annex Canada and invade Greenland but we can’t request return of an innocent man from El Salvador.

NEW: After the California fires, we wanted to know this: How can people shop for a climate-safe home? Turns out there were more than 65 questions nested under that first one. @tarasiegelbernard.bsky.social and I got to work on all of them, and here's the result. nyti.ms/3DREtXd

The government should address data privacy concerns without nationalizing media companies. This solution to the TikTok problem would be far worse than the disease.

The other countries that ban TikTok: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, North Korea, Senegal, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and of course China.

This TikTok ban eve, worth remembering how much the Biden administration declassified on foreign bad actors. Russia's plans on Ukraine, RT funding conservative influencers, Chinese/IR/NK hacking ops. Makes it even more striking it never gave evidence of TikTok being a PII suck or propaganda machine.

First take on the SCOTUS TikTok ban (combined with Biden saying "meh, now that we got what we fought for, we won't use it). A dark day for internet freedom. www.techdirt.com/2025/01/17/s...

TikTok’s future will turn on politics, not on today’s ruling, but by upholding the ban, the Court has markedly expanded the government’s power to censor in the name of national security. Its implications for TikTok may be limited, but the ruling creates a lot of space for other repressive policies.

Better idea: pass a comprehensive data privacy bill that applies across the board... and maybe *DON'T* mimic Chinese authoritarianism by creating a "Great Firewall" of apps that aren't allowed to operate here. You can actually fix things AND not abuse the 1st Amendment in one shot!

It took us a few thousand words in our amicus brief in the TikTok case to say what this individual said in less than a minute in ... you guessed it ... a TikTok video. (Here's our brief, for reference: knightcolumbia.org/documents/5c...)

The tick-tock of the clock is painful…

It's not true that SCOTUS always defers to the government in national security cases, as @adamliptak.bsky.social notes. Pentagon Papers was a national security case. So was Lamont. Also: the celebrated Homes and Brandeis dissents/concurrences were in national security cases. /1

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...

I wrote about the TikTok case and what, exactly, the government thinks we should be so afraid of. www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...

I'm delighted to be in such great [email protected]; Erwin Chemerinsky; @genevievelakier.bsky.social and @jameeljaffer.bsky.social --all critiquing the D.C. Circuit's opinion.

I have a @washingtonpost op-ed with @dispositive on the TikTok ban--which explicitly targeted speech from the start. Gift link: wapo.st/4g9JqbN

@jameeljaffer.bsky.social and I made a similar argument in a piece we published today in the NYT www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/o...

Today I learned that the government shutting down a speech platform that 150 million Americans use is not a First Amendment violation because national security.

This is a deeply misguided ruling that reads important First Amendment precedents too narrowly and gives the government sweeping power to restrict Americans’ access to information, ideas, and media from abroad. I hope the DC Circuit's ruling won't be the last word--and I doubt it will be.

The opinion centers a concern about gvt manipulation--which is fundamental to 1A law, it's true. In some ways, you could read this opinion as if it's an anti-Chinese-jawboning opinion. But for that position to be coherent, you have to ignore the fact that the *ban itself* is gvt manipulation

The DC Circuit not only upholds the ban, but claims that the ban FURTHERS First Amendment values. A really remarkable argument that I worry SCOTUS will like.