Podcast appearances and mentions of alex abdo

The Trump administration continues to place increasingly tyrannical demands on Columbia University, from controlling its departments to pressuring the school to demand the IHRA's definition of antisemitism. Free speech advocate Alex Abdo explains the legal issues surrounding the administration's demands and what the letter means for academic freedom. Then: Glenn takes your questions about Ukraine, Russia, DOGE, and free speech. -------- Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET. Become part of our Locals community Follow System Update:  Twitter Instagram TikTok Facebook LinkedIn Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week, a federal judge granted a motion to dismiss and strike a lawsuit brought by X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, against a nonprofit research outfit called The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). To learn more about why the ruling matters, Justin Hendrix spoke to Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; and Roberta Kaplan, a partner at the law firm of Kaplan, Hecker, and Fink, which represented CCDH in this matter.

On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo—two cases in which government officials allegedly pressured private companies to target disfavored viewpoints. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation join Jeffrey Rosen to break down both cases. Together they discuss the state action doctrine, explore the line between coercion and persuasion, and interrogate the tension between government speech and private speech.    Resources:  Murthy v. Missouri (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  NRA v. Vullo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963)  Alex Abdo, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri  David Greene, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri  David Greene and Karen Gullo, “Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!,” EFF (March 15, 2024)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, concerning the potential First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms—what's sometimes known as jawboning. The case arrived at the Supreme Court with a somewhat shaky evidentiary record, but the legal questions raised by government requests or demands to remove online content are real. To make sense of it all, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, called up Alex Abdo, the Litigation Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. While the law is unsettled, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?If you're interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute's amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight's series on jawboning—including Perault's reflections—here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, concerning the potential First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms—what's sometimes known as jawboning. The case arrived at the Supreme Court with a somewhat shaky evidentiary record, but the legal questions raised by government requests or demands to remove online content are real. To make sense of it all, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, called up Alex Abdo, the Litigation Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. While the law is unsettled, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?If you're interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute's amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight's series on jawboning—including Perault's reflections—here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws' content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring.     Resources:  Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript)  Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents  Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party  Lochner v. New York (1905)  PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)  Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985)  Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook, X, and TikTok using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.

Several recent cases before the Supreme Court have raised important questions at the intersection of technology and law. In this episode, Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including Netchoice v Paxton, Murthy v. Missouri, Lindke v. Freed, and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. This program was streamed live on January 16, 2024.  Resources:  Knight Institute amicus brief (in support of neither party) Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton  Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms' Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023)  Knight Institute amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party)  Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government's Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024)  David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there's no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023)  David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier)  Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.  Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.  Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The Supreme Court will hear a case brought by two Republican attorneys general accusing the Biden administration of coercing social media companies to remove conservative posts. Setting the politics aside, the ruling could have major implications for online speech. On POLITICO Tech, host Steven Overly asks Alex Abdo from the Knight First Amendment Institute to break it down.

Our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem has been taking a bit of a hiatus—but we're back! On today's episode, we're discussing the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in NetChoice v. Paxton, upholding a Texas law that binds large social media platforms to certain transparency requirements and significantly limits their ability to moderate content. The decision is truly a wild ride—so unhinged that it's difficult to figure out where First Amendment law in this area might go next.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with fellow Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein and Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—who's come on the podcast before to discuss the case. They tried to make sense of the Fifth Circuit's ruling and chart out alternative possibilities for what good-faith jurisprudence on social media regulation might look like.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem has been taking a bit of a hiatus—but we're back! On today's episode, we're discussing the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in NetChoice v. Paxton, upholding a Texas law that binds large social media platforms to certain transparency requirements and significantly limits their ability to moderate content. The decision is truly a wild ride—so unhinged that it's difficult to figure out where First Amendment law in this area might go next.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with fellow Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein and Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—who's come on the podcast before to discuss the case. They tried to make sense of the Fifth Circuit's ruling and chart out alternative possibilities for what good-faith jurisprudence on social media regulation might look like. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed an aggressive new Texas law regulating social media to go into effect. The law, known as HB20, seeks to restrict large social media platforms from taking down content on the basis of viewpoint—effectively restricting companies from engaging in a great deal of the content moderation that they currently perform. It also imposes a range of transparency and due process requirements on platforms with respect to their content moderation. A group of technology companies challenging the law have filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking to put HB20 back on hold while they continue to litigate the law's constitutionality under the First Amendment. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney at Knight. The Institute, where Evelyn is a senior research fellow, filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, taking a middle ground between Texas—which argues that the First Amendment poses no bar to HB20—and the plaintiffs—who argue that the First Amendment prohibits this regulation and many other types of social media regulation besides. So what does the Texas law actually do? Where does the litigation stand—and what will the impact of the Fifth Circuit's ruling be? And how does the Knight First Amendment Institute interpret, well, the First Amendment?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed an aggressive new Texas law regulating social media to go into effect. The law, known as HB20, seeks to restrict large social media platforms from taking down content on the basis of viewpoint—effectively restricting companies from engaging in a great deal of the content moderation that they currently perform. It also imposes a range of transparency and due process requirements on platforms with respect to their content moderation. A group of technology companies challenging the law have filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking to put HB20 back on hold while they continue to litigate the law's constitutionality under the First Amendment. This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Abdo, litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Scott Wilkens, senior staff attorney at Knight. The Institute, where Evelyn is a senior research fellow, filed an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit, taking a middle ground between Texas—which argues that the First Amendment poses no bar to HB20—and the plaintiffs—who argue that the First Amendment prohibits this regulation and many other types of social media regulation besides. So what does the Texas law actually do? Where does the litigation stand—and what will the impact of the Fifth Circuit's ruling be? And how does the Knight First Amendment Institute interpret, well, the First Amendment? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In October 2020, Facebook sent a cease and desist letter to two New York University researchers collecting data on the ads Facebook hosts on its platform, arguing that the researchers were breaching the company's terms of service. The researchers disagreed and kept up with their work. On August 3, after months of failed negotiations, Facebook shut off access to their accounts—an aggressive move that journalists and scholars denounced as an effort by the company to shield itself from transparency.For this week's episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (where, full disclosure, Evelyn will soon join as a senior research fellow). The Knight Institute is providing legal representation to the two NYU researchers, Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy—and Alex walked us through what exactly is happening here. Why did Facebook ban Edelson and McCoy's accounts, and what does their research tool, Ad Observer, do? What's the state of the law, and is there any merit to Facebook's claims that its hands are tied? And what does this mean for the future of research and journalism on Facebook? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From June 14, 2014: At the 2014 Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, a panel of experts debated the pros and cons of adding outside lawyers to litigation before two tribunals at the heart of the NSA surveillance controversy: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). As is well known, proceedings at those courts generally are held in secret and ex parte, with only the government arguing its position. But, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, many have called for reform, and for greater participation by non-government attorneys.The group was comprised of panelists Marc Zwillinger, an attorney with experience in surveillance matters; Alex Abdo of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Amie Stepanovich, of Access. Lawfare's Steve Vladeck moderated the discussion, which closely examined the question of whether, and how, to add more adversarial process to FISC and FISCR proceedings.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In October 2020, Facebook sent a cease and desist letter to two New York University researchers collecting data on the ads Facebook hosts on its platform, arguing that the researchers were breaching the company's terms of service. The researchers disagreed and kept up with their work. On August 3, after months of failed negotiations, Facebook shut off access to their accounts—an aggressive move that journalists and scholars denounced as an effort by the company to shield itself from transparency. For this week's episode of our Arbiters of Truth series on our online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (where, full disclosure, Evelyn will soon join as a senior research fellow). The Knight Institute is providing legal representation to the two NYU researchers, Laura Edelson and Damon McCoy—and Alex walked us through what exactly is happening here. Why did Facebook ban Edelson and McCoy's accounts, and what does their research tool, Ad Observer, do? What's the state of the law, and is there any merit to Facebook's claims that its hands are tied? And what does this mean for the future of research and journalism on Facebook?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by Knight First Amendment Institute Litigation Director Alex Abdo to discuss free speech, privacy, and President Donald Trump’s Twitter account. Show notes: Podcast transcript “Why Rely on the Fourth Amendment To Do the Work of the First?” “Knight Institute v. Trump — lawsuit challenging President Trump’s blocking of critics on Twitter” www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Orin Kerr of George Washington Law debate whether warrantless searches and seizures of cellphone records violate the Fourth Amendment in a special podcast hosted at the National Press Club. In late November, the Supreme Court will tackle a very modern question about the venerable Fourth Amendment: Does it allow police to see where you’ve been for the past four months by looking at your cellphone data without a warrant? In Carpenter v. United States, which will be argued on November 29, cell number data placed a robbery suspect, Timothy Ivory Carpenter, near the scenes of several crimes, and at about the same time as those crimes happened.  The phone information was used as evidence leading to Carpenter’s conviction on robbery charges and he is serving a long prison sentence. The Carpenter case has spurred a flurry of activity among Fourth Amendment scholars. Carpenter’s lawyers believe modern cellphone records are fundamentally different than traditional phone records cited in a 1979 Supreme Court decision at permits such searches without warrants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against Carpenter and said the Fourth Amendment’s search warrant requirement only protects what was actually said in phone conversations. And it upheld a third-party doctrine that the phone records belong to the phone company, they aren’t private information. Note: Audio for this podcast was recorded at an October 26, 2017 live event at the National Press Club sponsored by the American Constitution Society and The Federalist Society and presented with the generous support of the Bernstein Family Foundation.

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the President’s Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public official’s social media page is a designated public forum. The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institute’s requests would “send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.” Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the President’s Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public official’s social media page is a designated public forum. The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institute’s requests would “send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.” Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Host Betsy Kim interviews Knight First Amendment Institute senior staff attorney Alex Abdo on the non-profit’s efforts to stop Donald Trump from blocking accounts of people who disagree with him on Twitter. They also discuss the institution’s lawsuits to end computer and cell phone searches at the borders, and to allow access to the logs of visitors to the White House, Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago.

On Tuesday, at the 2014 Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, a panel of experts debated the pros and cons of adding outside lawyers to litigation before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Generally proceedings at that court are held in secret and ex parte, with only the government arguing its position. But, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, many have called for reform, and for greater participation by non-government attorneys.  The panel---comprised of Marc Zwillinger, Alex Abdo, Amie Stepanovich, and moderator Steve Vladeck---discussed the question of whether, and how, to add more adversarial process to FISC proceedings.