Podcast appearances and mentions of Eugene Volokh

FIRE is one of the leading free speech advocacy and litigation groups in the country, and Greg is not only its long-time head but also coauthor of several books, including Coddling of the American Mind (with psychologist Jonathan Haidt) and War on Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—And Why They Fail (with law professor and former ACLU President Nadine Strossen). Jane and Eugene talk with Greg about free speech lawsuits, free speech debates, and more. Recorded on September 4, 2025.  Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today's proverbial town square. 

Hosts and law professors Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer dive into President Trump's new executive order on flag burning. Is it bold politics or bad law? Or maybe both? They break down what the order really says, how it clashes with First Amendment precedents, and why targeting flag desecration even under otherwise content-neutral laws could violate the First Amendment. Jane and Eugene also discuss the tricky question of whether non-citizens can be deported for speech or symbolic expression that is protected for citizens (more on that in this Free Speech Unmuted episode). Recorded on August 26, 2025. Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today's proverbial town square. 

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer dive into the debate about “doxing” — putting someone's personal info out in public, usually to call them out or put pressure on them. They talk about how the term is defined (or not) in different laws, and how those laws bump up against the First Amendment. They also share real-life examples — from civil rights boycotts to the online outrage over the dentist who shot Cecil the Lion — and look at how exceptions like “true threats” or “incitement” fit in. The big case in this area is the recent Kratovil v. City of New Brunswick, where New Jersey's highest court upheld “Daniel's Law,” letting judges and police demand their home addresses not be published online (including by news sites). Eugene and Jane break down what that means for privacy and free speech. Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI, and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today's proverbial town square. 

In this Scaling Laws Academy "class," Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, speaks with Eugene Volokh, a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and long-time professor of law at UCLA, on libel in the AI context. The two dive into Volokh's paper, “Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output.” Extra credit for those who give it a full read and explore some of the "homework" below:“Beyond Section 230: Principles for AI Governance,” 138 Harv. L. Rev. 1657 (2025)“When Artificial Agents Lie, Defame, and Defraud, Who Is to Blame?,” Stanford HAI (2021)Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kevin Frazier brings Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and UCLA law professor, to explore the complexities of libel in the age of AI. Discover how AI-generated content challenges traditional legal frameworks and the implications for platforms under Section 230. This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in the evolving landscape of AI and law. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the Court's June 27 decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, which upheld a state law that required pornography sites to “use reasonable age verification methods ... to verify” that their users are adults. Recorded on July 1, 2025. Subscribe for the latest on free speech, censorship, social media, AI and the evolving role of the First Amendment in today's proverbial town square. 

The idea of Artificial Intelligence has long presented potential challenges in the legal realm, and as AI tools become more broadly available and widely used, those potential hurdles are becoming ever more salient for lawyers in their day-to-day operations. Questions abound, from what potential risks of bias and error may exist in using an AI tool, to the challenges related to professional responsibility as traditionally understood, to the risks large language learning models pose to client confidentiality. Some contend that AI is a must-use, as it opens the door to faster, more efficient legal research that could equip lawyers to serve their clients more effectively. Others reject the use of AI, arguing that the risks of use and the work required to check the output it gives exceed its potential benefit.Join us for a FedSoc Forum exploring the ethical and legal implications of artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Featuring: Laurin H. Mills, Member, Werther & Mills, LLCPhilip A. Sechler, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending FreedomProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus, UCLA School of Law; Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University(Moderator) Hon. Brantley Starr, District Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Encinitas Unified School District required two fifth-grade boys and their assigned kindergarten buddies to read and watch My Shadow is Pink and do an activity, pressuring the kindergartners to choose a color to represent their own shadows. The plaintiffs allege this was designed to make the students question their gender identity. Represented by First Liberty Institute and the National Center for Law and Policy, the families filed a complaint in the Southern District of California and sought a motion for preliminary injunction. On May 12, 2025, Judge M. James Lorenz granted that motion in part, requiring the school district to provide advance notice and opt-outs when gender identity material is taught in mentoring programs. The judge’s opinion focused on compelled speech, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of that claim.Free speech expert Professor Eugene Volokh and counsel Kayla Toney, who represents the families, will break down the opinion and discuss its ramifications for First Amendment jurisprudence.Featuring:Kayla Ann Toney, Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the First Amendment rules pertaining to public school students. The occasion: The Supreme Court just declined to consider a federal appeals court case that led a public school to punish a student for wearing a T-shirt saying “There Are Only Two Genders.” Did the lower court get that right? Recorded on June 3, 2025. 

Keith Whittington is joined by Eugene Volokh, the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, among other works, of the textbook, The First Amendment and Related Statutes. On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security announced that Harvard University has lost its certification to participate in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. As a consequence, international students enrolled at Harvard University will no longer be given student visas. Volokh and Whittington discuss what the administration has done and what constitutional questions it raises.

A mother sues Character.AI, claiming that a conversation between her teenage son and a Character.AI chatbot led him to commit suicide. A conservative activist sues Meta, claiming that its AI-generated false accusations about him. Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh analyze these cases, and more broadly, discuss lawsuits against AI companies, and possible First Amendment defenses to those lawsuits. Recorded on May 6, 2025. 

Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie gets bench-slapped. Jeff recites the decision's paean to the plight of lawyers. Tim wonders if Big Law was really hanging by such a slender thread. But on the law, neither is surprised by the result in Perkins Coie v. DOJ.Also this week:A motion to seal to protect privacy goes full Streisand Effect in Marin v. Rayant—filed, denied, appealed... and now, at the request of First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, a full published opinion.In Chang v. Brooks, a man loses his Wyoming guns after heatedly accusing his California neighbor of killing his cat and then getting hit with a restraining order. His SLAPP motion? Denied—without a hearing needed. Held: You're entitled to a hearing, but it would have made no difference. Jeff & Tim ask: if Abrego-Garcia were to get a hearing, would it make a difference?A $10M harassment verdict is tossed after a trial judge goes off-script with bizarre commentary and irrelevant evidence in Odom v. LACCD.Should courts require lawyers to swear they didn't use AI? Jeff and Tim say: bad research predates robots.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:You have a right to a hearing only if you have something worthwhile to sayhttp://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-for-appellate-motions-and-more.htmlhttps://bsky.app/profile/rmfifthcircuit.bsky.social/post/3lmfmkodpks2zhttps://bsky.app/profile/roland.cros.by/post/3lmjyk7wejc2o

Wednesday, April 30, 2025 Hoover Institution | Stanford University The Hoover Institution Center for Revitalizing American Institutions webinar series features speakers who are developing innovative ideas, conducting groundbreaking research, and taking important actions to improve trust and efficacy in American institutions. Speaker expertise and topics span governmental institutions, civic organizations and practice, and the role of public opinion and culture in shaping our democracy. The webinar series builds awareness about how we can individually and collectively revitalize American institutions to ensure our country's democracy delivers on its promise. The sixth session discussed How Foreign Speech Restrictions Affect American Free Expression with Jacob Mchangama and Eugene Volokh on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, from 10:00 - 11:00 am PT. Much of our speech to each other uses technology created by companies that operate throughout the world such as Google, Meta (Facebook), X, Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple. Because these companies operate worldwide, they are potentially vulnerable to pressures from the countries in which they operate—if Google has assets or people in Germany or Turkey, then the German or Turkish government can force them to comply with German or Turkish law. So long as countries have tried to regulate what tech companies do in their countries (e.g., what information Google shows to readers in Germany or Turkey), foreign restrictions end up having relatively little effect on what Americans can say to other Americans. But foreign countries are increasingly asking for worldwide restraints on things that are said on various multinational platforms (for instance, anything said anywhere about those countries' citizens or politicians), sharply risking undermining American's free speech rights.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the Administration's freezing of grants to Harvard, and Harvard's lawsuit challenging the freeze. The Trump Administration has announced that it was freezing grants to Harvard, and demanding that Harvard change many of its policies and practices in order to get back in the Administration's good graces.  President Trump has also suggested that Harvard might lose its tax-exempt status for “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness.'” Would such a cutoff of funding or tax exemption benefits violate the First Amendment? Jane and Eugene dig deep into that. Recorded on April 22, 2025.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss President Trump's Executive Orders that target major law firms (such as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block). The orders target the firms for retaliation based largely on their past support of various left-wing legal causes. Do those Orders violate the firms' (and their clients') Free Speech Clause or Petition Clause rights? Might they also violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (in civil cases) and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel (in criminal cases)? Recorded on March 31, 2025.

Keith Whittington is joined by David Cole, the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at Georgetown University Law Center. He is also the former National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. This episode focuses on the recent “Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia,” of which Professor Cole was a lead author. That statement was published on the website of the New York Review of Books, and was signed by an ideologically diverse group of 18 scholars ranging from Steven Calabresi and Eugene Volokh to Erwin Chemerinsky and Pam Karlan. Keith Whittington also signed the statement. 

The morning of March 8, Mahmoud Khalil was detained at his apartment in New York City. Khalil is a 30-year-old Algerian citizen. He was born in Syria and is of Palestinian descent. He came to this country on a student visa in 2022, married an American citizen in 2023, became a green card holder in 2024, and finished his graduate studies at Columbia University in December 2024. Mahmoud was also the spokesman and negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a group that says it is “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization,” and which played an active role in the rioting that took over Columbia buildings last spring. He has not been charged with any crimes—at least not so far. But the White House wants to deport him on the grounds that he poses a threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio went as far as to post on X: “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” Many of us believe that Khalil's ideology is abhorrent. He enjoyed the United States' educational system—attending one of our most prestigious universities—while advocating for America's destruction and for a group that seeks the genocide of the Jewish people. At the same time, the case for his deportation is not clear-cut. Here's the divide: Some say this is an immigration case. As Free Press contributing editor Abigail Shrier has put it: “This is an immigration, not a free speech case. It's about whether the U.S. can set reasonable conditions on aliens for entry and residence.” But others say this is, in fact, a free speech case that cuts to the heart of our most cherished values. To figure all this out, we're hosting three of the smartest legal minds we know. Eugene Volokh is an expert on the Bill of Rights who is currently a senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution. He's also a contributor to Reason magazine, where he runs his own blog, The Volokh Conspiracy. Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder is a practicing lawyer and the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Just yesterday, he filed a lawsuit in the District Court for the Southern District of New York against Khalil and several others for material support for terror. Jed Rubenfeld is a Free Press columnist and a professor of constitutional law at Yale Law School. This case is one we have written about extensively in The Free Press—and one that we are actively debating in our newsroom. So we were thrilled to be able to bring together some of the smartest people on this complicated issue. If you liked what you heard from Honestly, the best way to support us is to go to TheFP.com and become a Free Press subscriber today. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the First Amendment and immigration law. Recorded on March 12, 2025.

Between President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie and interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin sending letters to Georgetown Law, it has been quite the week for weaponized government. Sarah Isgur and David French dive into these two headliners, as well as a First Amendment debate involving green card holders. The Agenda: —More Sarah lore: Combative hula-hooping —Perkins Coie and President Trump's executive orders —FIRE's response to the Trump administration's threat to deport anti-Israel protesters —Eugene Volokh's fact sheet on aliens and speech —Another letter —‘We're a Jesuit, school go to hell' —Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos —Justice Amy Coney Barrett vs. MAGA —EPA and San Francisco's sewage waste —Richard Glossip avoids death row ... again Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Opaque algorithms shape what news stories you see on social media, dictate how artificial intelligence answers prompts, and can even decide whether applicants get a mortgage or a job interview. Amidst claims of algorithmic race, gender, and viewpoint discrimination, more and more individuals of all political affiliations are calling for greater government regulation of algorithms, while regulatory skeptics worry that government intervention will impede important technological innovation. This panel will explore the wisdom of efforts to regulate algorithms and how best to frame concerns about algorithmic errors and bias.Featuring:Prof. Gregory Dickinson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Nebraska–Lincoln College of LawMr. Dhruva Krishna, Visiting Jurist, University of California Los Angeles School of LawProf. Christina Mulligan, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution and Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of Law Moderator: Prof. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property and Information Law Program, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Does the Free Press Clause provide extra rights to the institutional press, or instead protect all speakers' equal rights to use the printing press and its technological heirs? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss this and more with legendary First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams. Download the 2025 Stanford Emerging Technology Review here: https://stanford.io/4bilFg0  Recorded on February 21, 2025.

​The Constitution generally covers only government action; if a private university expels students for their speech, or a private shopping mall forbids leafletting, or a private employer fires an employee for backing some candidate, that doesn't violate the First Amendment. But state laws in roughly half the states do limit some such private restrictions on speech and political activity, especially ones imposed by private employers, much as federal law limits private employers' restriction on their employees' religious activity. Should there be more such laws? Fewer? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer talk about this, and more. Recorded on January 28, 2025. ​

The intersection of the First Amendment, parental rights, and educational texts has become a topic of significant conversation over the past several years. School boards in states across the nation are facing questions related to what materials are appropriate for students to read, how to educate children, the nature of parental rights, what exceptions should be granted for families who raise religious objections, and so much more. Legal challenges have cropped up on both sides, as families challenge various school boards' decisions concerning opt-outs from particular texts and decisions to remove texts from libraries.Join us for a litigation update conversation on Pickens County Chapter of the NAACP et al. v. School District of Pickens County (a South Carolina case concerning the removal of a book) and related proceedings concerning instructional materials in South Carolina and religious families receiving opt-outs in St. Louis Park, MN.Featuring:Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLPKayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

Congress, worried that TikTok may be unduly subject to Chinese government control, passed a law that would in effect stop TikTok from being made available in the U.S. unless it's sold off to a non-China-linked company. This morning (Dec. 6), the federal D.C. Circuit upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge (and some other legal challenges); Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh explain. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Over the past year, college campuses have been filled with student protests and demonstrations. A large number of these protests involved students camping out on campus for weeks, taking over administrative and academic buildings, harassing and threatening other students and faculty members, and destruction of property. Many administrators have refused to discipline students or enforce their policies because of First Amendment concerns. Instead, they contend the First Amendment prohibited them from punishing the students or enforcing their policies because the students were engaged in protected speech. When it comes to protests and demonstrations, what does the First Amendment protect? When does protected speech cross the line into unprotected conduct? What duties does a public university have to protect its students from harassment and intimidation? How does a university determine what speech is likely to incite imminent violence?This panel will examine the scope and limits of the First Amendment, especially as it relates to public colleges and universities.Featuring:Hon. Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under LawDean Thomas J. Miles, Dean & Clifton R. Musser Professor of Law and Economics, The University of Chicago Law SchoolProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties UnionProf. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

RESOLVED: That Congress Can Ban TikTokFeaturing:Mr. Miguel Estrada, Partner, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Mr. Patrick Philbin, Partner, Torridon Law PLLCModerator: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution; Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Distinguished Research Professor, UCLA School of Law

At a recent conference co-hosted by Lawfare and the Georgetown Institute for Law and Technology, Georgetown law professor Paul Ohm moderated a conversation on "AI Regulation and Free Speech: Navigating the Government's Tightrope,” between Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein, Fordham law professor Chinny Sharma, and Eugene Volokh, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

How does European free speech law differ from American free speech law, when it comes to “hate speech,” blasphemy, and misinformation? Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh welcome Jacob Mchangama, who is CEO of The Future of Free Speech; research professor of political science at Vanderbilt; the author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media and other works on free speech; Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; and a trained Danish lawyer who is one of the leading experts in comparative free speech law. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Can you sue protesters who block the street in front of your business? Protesters who block your way to work? People who are trying to get you fired? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, who have written and taught about tort law as well as free speech law, discuss all these questions and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss calls to restrict misinformation, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to Hurricane Helene. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

This week on The Nick Halaris Show we are featuring prominent legal scholar and free speech expert, Eugene Volokh.  Eugene is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, the author of The Volokh Conspiracy, a widely read legal blog, and a co-host of the Free Speech Unmuted Podcast.  For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Free speech debates are all the rage today and I wanted to have Eugene on the show to lay some important groundwork for this often misunderstood topic.  Constitutional free speech law is a complicated and most commentators online, especially the loudest voices, don't have a clue.  After decades of teaching and high-level legal scholarship, Eugene has a way of explaining very complex matters in digestible ways.  Tune in to this important episode to learn:   • What public universities can and cannot do when it comes to limiting speech• The difference between viewpoint and content-neutral restrictions• The rare instances where free speech can actually be restricted• The relationship between free speech law and state power over public school curricula • Why free speech is so critical to democratic governance • & Much, much more Stay tuned to the end to learn why Eugene thinks free speech absolutism is a misnomer and to understand how free speech law applies to the public produces of social media companies. As always, I hope you all enjoy this episode.  Thanks for tuning in!        Love this episode? Please rate, subscribe, and review on your favorite podcast platform to help more users find our show.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the various rules the Court applies in obscenity cases and the forthcoming Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision.  Fun fact: Associate Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote the “I know it when I see it” line in a 1964 obscenity opinion, later concluded that any such obscenity test would be unconstitutionally vague. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

From April 26, 2023: If someone lies about you, you can usually sue them for defamation. But what if that someone is ChatGPT? Already in Australia, the mayor of a town outside Melbourne has threatened to sue OpenAI because ChatGPT falsely named him a guilty party in a bribery scandal. Could that happen in America? Does our libel law allow that? What does it even mean for a large language model to act with "malice"? Does the First Amendment put any limits on the ability to hold these models, and the companies that make them, accountable for false statements they make? And what's the best way to deal with this problem: private lawsuits or government regulation?On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, discussed these questions with First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA and the author of a draft paper entitled "Large Libel Models.”Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Live from the Arizona State University California Center Broadway in Los Angeles, CA: Zócalo convenes two back-to-back panels moderated by KQED correspondent and co-host of “The California Report” Saul Gonzalez to discuss when and how protest makes a difference. The first panel features scholars and thinkers who can offer larger context for the current moment: urban journalism professor Danielle K. Brown, constitutional law professor and former director of the ACLU LGBT Project Matt Coles, and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh. The second panel features practitioners who have engaged in historic protests in Los Angeles and beyond: co-founder of the day laborer band Los Jornaleros del Norte Pablo Alvarado, Los Angeles Police Department former assistant chief Sandy Jo MacArthur, and immigrant rights and labor justice activist Victor Narro. Visit https://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/ to read our articles and learn about upcoming events. Visit www.zocalopublicsquare.org/ to read our articles and learn about upcoming events. Follow along on X: x.com/thepublicsquare Instagram: www.instagram.com/thepublicsquare/ Facebook: www.facebook.com/zocalopublicsquare LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/zocalopublicsquare #farmworkers #agriculture

In Vidal v. Elster (the “Trump Too Small” case), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal limitation on registering trademarks that include other people’s names. All the Justices agreed that, though the limitation was content-based, it didn’t need to be judged under strict scrutiny. But behind this unanimity was a major rift about whether the Court should decide these matters by focusing on history and tradition, or should instead build on more recent precedents such as those dealing with “limited public forums.” Which is the better approach – and which is the one most likely to gain majority support in the future?Featuring:Prof. Barbara Lauriat, Associate Professor of Law & Dean’s Scholar in Intellectual Property, Texas Tech University School of LawProf. Lisa Ramsey, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Prof. Zvi Rosen, Assistant Professor, Southern Illinois University School of Law

Incitement, solicitation, fighting words, threats, bad tendencies, and more, with special attention to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Court's little-publicized precedent on the subject. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.  

Welcome back to the Law School Toolbox podcast! Today, we're joined by Markus Funk – partner at Perkins Coie, professor, and author - to talk about being an adjunct law professor.    In this episode we discuss: Markus Funk's background and teaching experience The role of adjunct professors in law schools, as well as the opportunity cost and challenges associated with it  Institutional hierarchy in law schools Proposals for improving adjuncts' experience The benefits of taking classes with adjunct professors Resources: Perkins Coie: T. Markus Funk (https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/professionals/t-markus-funk.html) LinkedIn: T. Markus Funk (https://www.linkedin.com/in/t-markus-funk-ph-d-24709925/) The Hidden Life of Law School Adjuncts: Teaching Temps, Indispensable Instructors, Underappreciated Cash Cows, or Something Else?, by T. Markus Funk, Andrew S. Boutros, and Eugene Volokh (https://texaslawreview.org/the-hidden-life-of-law-school-adjuncts-teaching-temps-indispensable-instructors-underappreciated-cash-cows-or-something-else/) Download the Transcript  (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/episode-461-unveiling-the-adjunct-experience-an-interview-with-markus-funk/) If you enjoy the podcast, we'd love a nice review and/or rating on Apple Podcasts (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/law-school-toolbox-podcast/id1027603976) or your favorite listening app. And feel free to reach out to us directly. You can always reach us via the contact form on the Law School Toolbox website (http://lawschooltoolbox.com/contact). If you're concerned about the bar exam, check out our sister site, the Bar Exam Toolbox (http://barexamtoolbox.com/). You can also sign up for our weekly podcast newsletter (https://lawschooltoolbox.com/get-law-school-podcast-updates/) to make sure you never miss an episode! Thanks for listening! Alison & Lee

SCOTUS: Is AI Large Language Model, such as Claude of Anthropic, responsible for its word and remarks and assertions? Does it enjoy the First Amendment? Eugene Volokh, Hoover Institution. https://reason.com/volokh/2024/07/01/four-justices-in-netchoice-flag-question-whether-first-amendment-protects-ai-curated-materials/ 1953

In Moody v. Netchoice, the Supreme Court considered the Florida and Texas laws that tried to limit social media platforms' power to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court considered whether the federal government impermissibly pressured social media platforms to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  What did the Court tell us?  Jane and Eugene try to figure it out. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

In this episode of the Fourth Branch Explainer podcast, Prof. Eugene Volokh, from UCLA Law School, and Prof. David Bernstein, from the Antonin Scalia Law School, discuss the features, implications, and possibilities of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Silicon Valley) sits down with First Amendment scholars Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh to explore Internet policy and free speech. Topics include the TikTok ban, social media child addiction claims, competition, and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Congressman Ro Khanna represents California's 17th Congressional District, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, and is serving his fourth term. Rep. Khanna serves on the House Armed Services Committee as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems (CITI), as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, a member of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, where he previously chaired the Environmental Subcommittee. As a leading progressive in the House, Rep, Khanna is working to restore American manufacturing and technology leadership, improve the lives of working people, and advance U.S. leadership on climate, human rights, and diplomacy around the world. Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Scientific Sense ® by Gill Eapen: Prof. Eugene Volokh is Professor of Law at UCLA. He teaches First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Please subscribe to this channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/ScientificSense?sub_confirmation=1 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scientificsense/support

THE SUPREME COURT WILL SOON DECIDE: If a social media censures you for your viewpoint - does that violate the First Amendment? If laws tell Social Media companies they must publish your viewpoint...is the company's First Amendment rights violated?We all say we want free speech. But if you own a private company can the government tell you what it can and cannot post?  Are social media companies the public square...common carriers...or...private companies that can choose their own content?That is the question before the Supreme Court. In this episode, Bob talks with Supreme Court scholar Eugene Volokh:Facts of the caseThe State of Texas enacted HB 20 to regulate large social media platforms, such as Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and YouTube. The law purports to prohibit large social media platforms from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the speaker.NetChoice and the Computer & Communications Industry Association filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General of Texas, challenging two provisions of the law as unconstitutional: (1) Section 7, which prohibits viewpoint-based censorship of users' posts, except for content that incites criminal activity or is unlawful. (2) Section 2, which requires platforms to disclose how they moderate and promote content, publish an "acceptable use policy," and maintain a complaint-and-appeal system for their users.The district court issued a preliminary injunction, holding that Section 7 and Section 2 are facially unconstitutional. The court argued that social media platforms have some level of editorial discretion protected by the First Amendment, and HB 20 interferes with that discretion. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed, rejecting the idea that large corporations have a “freewheeling” First Amendment right to censor what people say. It reasoned that HB 20 does not regulate the platforms' speech but protects other people's speech and regulates the platforms' conduct.Question:Do Texas HB 20's provisions prohibiting social media platforms from censoring users' content and imposing stringent disclosure requirements violate the First Amendment?Our guest:Eugene Volokh teaches First Amendment law and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (6th ed. 2016), and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed. 2013), as well as over 90 law review articles. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. His law review articles have been cited by opinions in eight Supreme Court cases and several hundred court opinions in total, as well as several thousand scholarly articles.

A new law against hate speech came into force in Scotland on Monday, praised by some but criticized by others who say its sweeping provisions could criminalize religious views or tasteless jokes. The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act makes it an offense to stir up hatred with threatening or abusive behavior on the basis of characteristics including age, disability, religion, sexual orientation and transgender identity. Racial hatred was already banned under a law dating from 1986. The maximum sentence is seven years in prison. Critics argue that the law will have a chilling effect on free speech, making people afraid to express their views. Joining us today on AirTalk to discuss the new law and criticisms of it is Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA where he teaches First Amendment law.

First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA Law School, discusses the 11th Circuit finding that one of Florida's “anti-woke” bans, is unconstitutional. Business law expert Eric Talley, a professor at Columbia Law School, discusses Elon Musk suing Open AI and an unprecedented $6 billion legal fee. June Grasso hosts.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

All levels of the judiciary have faced increased attacks on their independence in recent years. Even trial court judges have faced increased scrutiny, particularly those in single-judge districts and those who have granted nationwide injunctions. “Reform” proposals such as adding justices, term limits, ethics codes, abolishing blue slips, and limiting the Court’s jurisdiction have been proposed by critics to limit the power of the courts. However, these proposals are nothing new: in decades past, when the ideological balance of the Court was different, similar proposals were floated by those who sought to limit the role and influence of the courts. What’s changed? What is the role of the organized bar, if any, in defending judicial independence? How, if at all, has the increased politicization of the judicial confirmation process affected judicial independence? What does all of this mean for trust in the judiciary? And are there changes that should be considered that are both constitutional and would receive bipartisan support? Should conservatives be more aggressive in defending attacks against the judiciary? Panelists will discuss these and other questions in considering judicial independence and the people’s trust in the judiciary.Featuring:Hon. Carlos T. Bea Moderator, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth CircuitBenjamin M. Flowers, Partner, Ashbrook Byrne Kresge LLC; Former Solicitor General, State of OhioProf. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation, Professor of Law; Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawDebra Wong Yang, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Two topics for the price of one episode. Jeanne Hruska is joined by Professor Mark Lemley for a discussion on his recent article, “Red Courts, Blue Courts,” which explains how administrations are increasingly prioritizing district court vacancies in states that align with their party and the resulting consequences. In the second half of the episode, they delve into AI and the question of whether AI-generated content is protected by the First Amendment. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Jeanne Hruska, ACS Sr Advisor for Communications and Strategy Guest: Mark A. Lemley, William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School Link: "Red Courts, Blue Courts," by Mark A. Lemley Link: "Freedom of Speech and AI Output," by Eugene Volokh, Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson Link: Senate Roll Call Data on  President Biden's appointed judges Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2023.

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases about social media and the First Amendment. The cases involve questions surrounding when and whether a public official's social media activity constitutes state action subject to First Amendment constraints—and if so, whether they can block individuals from their social media pages. In this episode, David Cole of the ACLU and Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law join to break down the arguments in both cases, discuss the claims being made, and how the outcomes of the cases could contribute to further defining the scope of speech rights online. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates.     Resources:   Lindke v. Freed, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, Oral Argument (CSPAN)  Eugene Volokh, When Is Government Official's Blocking Commenter from Social Media Page "State Action"?, Volokh Conspiracy (June 2022)  David Cole / Brief of the ACLU et al in support of respondents, O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier  David Cole / Brief of ACLU et al in support of petitioner, Lindke v. Freed     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.

If someone lies about you, you can usually sue them for defamation. But what if that someone is ChatGPT? Already in Australia, the mayor of a town outside Melbourne has threatened to sue OpenAI because ChatGPT falsely named him a guilty party in a bribery scandal. Could that happen in America? Does our libel law allow that? What does it even mean for a large language model to act with "malice"? Does the First Amendment put any limits on the ability to hold these models, and the companies that make them, accountable for false statements they make? And what's the best way to deal with this problem: private lawsuits or government regulation?On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, discussed these questions with First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA and the author of a draft paper entitled "Large Libel Models.”Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.