Podcast appearances and mentions of Jeff Kosseff

From October 6, 2023: The First Amendment protects speech, but what kind? True speech, sure. But what about false or misleading speech? What if it's harmful? After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater—or can you?To answer these questions, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare spoke with Jeff Kosseff, who is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare. Jeff is releasing his latest book this month, titled "Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation," in which he describes, and defends, the First Amendment's robust protections for false and misleading speech.They spoke about the book, why you sometimes can yell fire in a crowded theater, and how new technology both superchargers misinformation and provides new tools to fight it.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.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit public.substack.comMany journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”

Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. He is the author of four books including his most recent, “Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation.” He has also written books about anonymous speech and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.   Timestamps   0:00 Introduction 2:30 Jeff's focus on the First Amendment  4:27 What is Section 230? 9:30 “Liar in a Crowded Theater” 16:27 What does the First Amendment say about lies? 19:35 What speech isn't protected?  21:27 The Eminem case  27:33 The Dominion lawsuit  38:44 “The United States of Anonymous” 46:39 The impact of age verification laws  49:43 “The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet” 58:40 What's next for Jeff?  1:01:35 Outro    Show Notes    Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) FIRE's guide to Section 230 Nikki Haley on social media anonymity Schenck v. United States (1917) “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet” by Jeff Kosseff NBC News: “Judge allows lawsuit against Snap from relatives of dead children to move forward” “The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech” by Jeff Kosseff United States v. Alvarez (2012)

Looking back on the year's 50 episodes, we discuss some of our best guests, including our 9th Circuit correspondent, Cory Webster, our legal-writing correspondent, Ryan McCarl, our legal-movie correspondent, Gary Wax, and our inspirational public-interest appellate lawyers Chris Schandevel and Carl Cecere. There's our legal-citation-parenthetical maverick Jack Metzler. And then there are our legal scholars and authors Stephen Vladeck, Jeff Kosseff, and Eugene Volokh.After talking about some great guests, we talk about some bad cases. Why don't we talk about good cases? We discuss that, too.We also talk about some of our takeaways from our interviews about other states' appellate rules. We grumble about some of the rules in California, but we have some things to recommend to other states. But also some things we could learn.Then we turn to some of the legal tech we can't do without. Topping the list: ClearBrief (via Jackie Schafer), followed by CoCounsel.Hope to have you along in 2024!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.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:The Coming Changes to Med-Mal Caps, with Ben IkutaUsing ChatGPT responsibly, with Jayne WoodsShould AI Replace Law Clerks? Yes, says Adam UnikowskyFrom BigLaw to Solo: Carl Cecere on the freedom to take significant casesRacking Up Appellate Argument Experience with Chris SchandevelCory Webster's 9th Circuit Dispatches See other Items at the KowalLawGroup.com blog here: https://bit.ly/3viYwJrVideos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

If lying became illegal, that probably wouldn't curb “fake news.” Jeff Kosseff, associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, joins host Krys Boyd to discuss what is constitutionally accepted free speech, and why he believes we need a marketplace of ideas so people can make up their own minds. His book is “Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation.”

The former journalist defends misinformation in the Trump era and explains why so many journalists are against free speech.

Host Reed Galen is joined by Jeff Kosseff, Author and Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. They discuss Jeff's latest book, Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation, which examines and defends legal protections for false speech. You can pick up LIAR IN A CROWDED THEATER wherever fine books are found and for more from Reed Galen, be sure to subscribe to “The Home Front”. If you'd like to ask a question or share a comment with The Lincoln Project, send an email to podcast@lincolnproject.us. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Nine months ago, I testified and provided evidence to Congress about the existence of a Censorship Industrial Complex, a network of government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, government contractors, and Big Tech media platforms that conspired to censor ordinary Americans and elected officials alike for holding disfavored views.I regret to inform the Subcommittee that the scope, power, and law-breaking of the Censorship Industrial Complex are even worse than we had realized back in March.Two days ago, my colleagues and I published the first batch of internal files from “The Cyber Threat Intelligence League,” which show US and UK military contractors working in 2019 and 2020 to both censor and turn sophisticated psychological operations and disinformation tactics, developed abroad, against the American people.Many insist that all we identified in the Twitter Files, the Facebook Files, and the CTIL Files were legal activities by social media platforms to take down content that violated their terms of service. Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and other Big Tech companies are privately owned and free to censor content. And government officials are free to point out wrong information, they argue.But the First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish,” and there is now a large body of evidence proving that the government did precisely that.What's more, the whistleblower who delivered the CTIL Files to us says that its leader, a “former” British intelligence analyst, was “in the room” at the Obama White House in 2017 when she received the instructions to create a counter-disinformation project to stop a "repeat of 2016."The US Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Information Security Agency (CISA) has been the center of gravity for much of the censorship, with the National Science Foundation financing the development of censorship and disinformation tools and other federal government agencies playing a supportive role.Emails from CISA's NGO and social media partners show that CISA created the Election Integrity Partnership (EIP) in 2020, which involved the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) and other US government contractors. EIP and its successor, the Virality Project (VP), urged Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms to censor social media posts by ordinary citizens and elected officials alike.In 2020, the Department of Homeland Security's CISA violated the First Amendment and interfered in the election, while in 2021, CISA and the White House violated the First Amendment and undermined America's response to the Covid pandemic by demanding that Facebook and Twitter censor content that Facebook said was “often-true,” including about vaccine side effects.But the abuses of power my colleagues and I have documented go well beyond censorship. They also include what appears to be an effort by government officials and contractors, including the FBI, to frame certain individuals as posing a threat of domestic terrorism for their political beliefs. All of this is profoundly unAmerica. One's commitment to free speech means nothing if it does not extend to your political enemies.In his essential new book, Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation, Jeff Kosseff, a law professor at the United States Naval Academy, shows that the widespread view that the government can censor false speech and/or speech that “causes harm” is mostly wrong. The Supreme Court has allowed very few constraints on speech. For example, the test of incitement to violence remains its immediacy.In the face of human fallibility, and the complexity of reality, America's founders and others worldwide long ago decided that it was best to let people speak their minds almost all the time, particularly about controversial social and political issues.I encourage Congress to defund and dismantle the governmental organizations involved in censorship. That includes phasing out funding for the  National Science Foundation's Track F, “Trust & Authenticity in Communication Systems,” and its “Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC)” track. I would also encourage Congress to abolish CISA in DHS. Short of taking those steps, I would encourage significant guard rails and oversight to prevent such censorship from happening again.Finally, I would encourage Congress to consider making Section 230 liability protections contingent upon social media platforms, known in the law as “interactive computer services,” to allow adult users to moderate their own legal content, through filters they choose, and whose algorithms are transparent to users.I would also encourage Congress to prohibit government officials from asking the platforms from removing content, which the Supreme Court may or may not rule unconsitutional next year when it decides on the Missouri v. Biden case. Should the Court somehow decide that government requests for censorship are constitutional, then I urge Congress to require such requests be reported publicly and instantaneously so that such censorship demands occur in plain sight.Public is a reader-supported publication, and thus free from advertiser and investor pressures. To support our award-winning journalism, and our fight for free speech, please subscribe now! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit public.substack.com/subscribe

Freedom of Speech in the Digital Age with Professor Jeff Kosseff by Technology Policy Institute

Turns out you CAN shout “fire” in a crowded theater, and lots of other lies besides—unless the government meets a heavy burden, that is. The author of four books and more than 20 academic articles, First Amendment scholar and Naval Academy associate professor Jeff Kosseff makes the case for the freedom to speak freely, and even to tell lies, free (mostly) from threat of state sanction. Our discussion covers:The “marketplace of ideas” is better than the government at separating truth from lies.Why every other state and Congress should just copy-and-paste California's anti-SLAPP statute into their code books.Is there a free-speech right to ChatGPT, if there's no human speaker? Yes—there is not just a right to make statements, but also to receive them.Jeff was surprised at the critical reaction to his thesis that there may be a right to lie. But thankfully the courts have mostly stood by the First Amendment's robust protections, receiving an B+/A- grade from Prof. Kosseff.Jeff Kosseff's biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.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.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Jeff Kosseff's book is Liar in a Crowded Theater.The California statute prohibiting doctors from expressing opinions contrary to official medical policy as concerning vaccines and perhaps other topics was enjoined by the district court in early 2023: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/california-law-aiming-curb-covid-misinformation-blocked-by-judge-2023-01-26/.Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.

When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: “fire in a crowded theater.” This outdated analogy, originally deployed to justify the conviction of an anti‐​draft pamphleteer, has taken on a life of its own as a catch‐​all justification for the regulation of false speech. Along with the other half‐​truths, exaggerations, lies, and falsehoods that law professor Jeff Kosseff examines in Liar in a Crowded Theater, this persistent, pernicious phrase illustrates the enduring difficulty of mandating truth.Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol, he argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here.Kosseff shows not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, Kosseff proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Jeff Kosseff (Naval Academy) joins the show to discuss his new book Liar in a Crowded Theater, a defense of your First Amendment right to speak falsely (sometimes!).Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of MisinformationThe Twenty-Six Words That Created the InternetThe United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online SpeechTech Policy Podcast #350: When the Government Yells at Social Media

EPISODE 1829: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Jeff Kosseff, author of LIAR IN A CROWDED THEATER, about the protection of free speech in our digital age of misinformationJeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. He is the author of four books and more than 20 academic journal articles. In fall 2023, Johns Hopkins University Press will publish his latest book, Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation, which examines and defends legal protections for false speech. In 2019, he was named an Andrew Carnegie Fellow by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, to support his 2022 book The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. His 2019 book, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, traced the history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. He also is the author of Cybersecurity Law, a textbook and treatise whose third edition was published by Wiley in 2022. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right. When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater―and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars? In Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation (Johns Hopkins UP, 2023), law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them. Liar in a Crowded Theater explores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here. Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases―from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song―Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Professor Jeff Kosseff, author of "Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation" examines and defends constitutional protection for false speech. "It's the listener and the reader who gets to choose, not the Government!" says Jeff. His warning is that "Once we give away our freedom of speech, we are unlikely to get it back." Jeff is also the author of "The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech" and "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet."

The First Amendment protects speech, but what kind? True speech, sure. But what about false or misleading speech? What if it's harmful? After all, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater—or can you?To answer these questions, Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare spoke with Jeff Kosseff, who is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare. Jeff is releasing his latest book this month, titled "Liar in a Crowded Theater: Freedom of Speech in a World of Misinformation," in which he describes, and defends, the First Amendment's robust protections for false and misleading speech.They spoke about the book, why you sometimes can yell fire in a crowded theater, and how new technology both superchargers misinformation and provides new tools to fight it.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Matthew Herrick was sitting on his stoop in Harlem when something weird happened. Then, it happened again. And again. It happened so many times that it became an absolute nightmare—a nightmare that haunted his life daily and flipped it completely upside down. What stood between Matthew and help were 26 little words. These 26 words, known as Section 230, are the core of an Internet law that coats the tech industry in Teflon. No matter what happens, who gets hurt, or what harm is done, tech companies can't be held responsible for the things that happen on their platforms. Section 230 affects the lives of an untold number of people like Matthew, and makes the Internet a far more ominous place for all of us. But also, in a strange twist, it's what keeps the whole thing up and running in the first place. Why do we have this law? And more importantly, why can't we just delete it? Special thanks to James Grimmelmann, Eric Goldman, Naomi Leeds, Jeff Kosseff, Carrie Goldberg, and Kashmir Hill. EPISODE CREDITSReported by - Rachael CusickProduced by - Rachael Cusick and Simon Adlerwith mixing help from - Arianne WackFact-checking by - Natalie MiddletonEdited by - Pat Walters EPISODE CITATIONS: Articles:Kashmir Hill's story introduced us to Section 230. Books: Jeff Kosseff's book The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet (https://zpr.io/8ara6vtQVTuK) is a fantastic biography of Section 230To read more about Carrie Goldberg's work, check out her book Nobody's Victim (https://zpr.io/Ra9mXtT9eNvb). Our newsletter comes out every Wednesday. It includes short essays, recommendations, and details about other ways to interact with the show. Sign up (https://radiolab.org/newsletter)! Radiolab is supported by listeners like you. Support Radiolab by becoming a member of The Lab (https://members.radiolab.org/) today. Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @radiolab, and share your thoughts with us by emailing radiolab@wnyc.org. Leadership support for Radiolab's science programming is provided by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Science Sandbox, a Simons Foundation Initiative, and the John Templeton Foundation. Foundational support for Radiolab was provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.

On July 4, a federal judge in Louisiana issued one of the most dramatic First Amendment rulings in recent memory. The case involves a variety of individuals, organizations, and conservative state governments who accuse the Biden administration of unconstitutional "jawboning”—that is, informally pressuring social media companies to censor speech, especially about controversial topics like COVID vaccines and election integrity.Describing the allegations as the "most massive attack against free speech in United States' history," Judge Terry Doughty enjoined by name dozens of high-level Biden administration officials, and potentially thousands more unnamed government employees, from communicating with social media companies about taking down First Amendment-protected user content.If the opinion stands, it will have a dramatic effect on the ability of the government to communicate with social media platforms, a practice that administrations of both parties have engaged in for years. Earlier this week, Judge Doughty rejected a motion from the government to stay the injunction pending appeal; the government has since asked the Fifth Circuit to do so instead and, in a sign of how seriously it is taking the ruling, has signaled that it may ask the Supreme Court to step in if the Fifth Circuit does not.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, spoke to two of the leading experts on the government's relationship with social media platforms to work through the implications of this decision. Derek Bambauer is the Irving Cypen Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law and is the author of an influential law review article on jawboning in the context of internet speech. Jeff Kosseff is an associate professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy and a Lawfare contributing editor and the author of numerous books and articles about online speech issues.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What do a squeaky dog toy and a Tennessee whiskey company have to do with the Supreme Court? Attorney Luke Behnke is breaking down the case causing some serious debate. And, the justices could impact the future of the internet with an upcoming decision. We're talking to Jeff Kosseff, the man who wrote the book on Section 230. Learn more about our guests: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/shownotes Sign-up for our bonus weekly email: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/email Become an INSIDER for ad-free episodes: https://www.theNewsWorthy.com/insider This episode was sponsored by: BetterHelp: https://www.BetterHelp.com/newsworthy CastleFlexx: https://castleflexx.com/discount/news10 To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com #SupremeCourt #Section230 #JackDaniels  

Fox has been fighting to prevent Dominion Voting Systems from landing a $1.6 billion judgment for conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election that the network aired, as the case heads for jury selection this week.Even before trial begins, Fox heads into court with stinging defeats. A judge found, in a rare summary judgment ruling, that the broadcasts at issue in the case were false. Dominion only has to prove that Fox acted with actual malice.In the latest episode, First Amendment scholar Jeff Kosseff explains why that standard, established by the landmark SCOTUS decision New York Times v. Sullivan, remains Fox's "only lifeline" shielding the network from massive liabilities.Check out episode 79 for more information about what Dominion uncovered during discovery.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Kara and Scott talk big earnings at Salesforce, Amazon's HQ2 construction pause, and more executive departures at Apple. Also, TikTok ban bills are moving ahead, amid renewed GOP attacks on Big Tech. Plus, we're joined by Friend of Pivot Jeff Kosseff to discuss how new bills aimed at online speech could challenge the First Amendment. You can find Jeff on Twitter at @jkosseff and you can preorder his book here. Hear Kara's interview with Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff here. You can read the Wall Street Journal Scott mentions in Wins and Fails here. Send us your questions! Call 855-51-PIVOT or go to nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dan begins by discussing SCOTUS oral arguments of Gonzalez V. Google with cybersecurity law Professor Jeff Kosseff. Dan then addresses the reckless media tour by GA grand jury foreperson, Emily Kohrs.

The seminal 1964 Supreme Court decision in New York Times v. Sullivan limited the ability of public officials to silence their critics by successfully suing them for defamation. Sullivan made “American public officials more accountable, the American media more watchful, and the American people better informed,” said William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. But Sullivan is increasingly under attack from politicians, activists, and even sitting Justices of the Supreme Court. They believe the decision went too far, enabling the news media and others to defame others with little-to-no consequence. On today's show, we are joined by lawyers Floyd Abrams (Cahill Gordon & Reindel), JT Morris (FIRE), and Matthew Schafer (Fordham Law) to discuss New York Times v. Sullivan and its future. Show notes: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) “Two Justices Say Supreme Court Should Reconsider Landmark Libel Decision” by Adam Liptak “How to Restore Balance to Libel Law” by Glenn Reynolds Florida HB 991, the anti-Sullivan bill Matthew Schafer's tweet thread on Florida's HB 991 “New York Times v. Sullivan and the Forgotten Session of the US Supreme Court” by Matthew Schafer “The Most Important Supreme Court Precedent for Freedom of the Press Is in Jeopardy” by Matthew Schafer and Jeff Kosseff   www.sotospeakpodcast.com YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@freespeechtalk Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/freespeechtalk Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/freespeechtalk/ Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Top Fox News executives, right up to Rupert Murdoch, were quoted deriding the same 2020 election conspiracy theories some in their network pushed, in an explosive new legal brief unsealed last week.Those revelations could prove damaging to Fox in defending a $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit filed by Dominion, one of the two voting machine companies scapegoated to explain Donald Trump's defeat in the last presidential race. On the latest episode, Professor Jeff Kosseff — a prominent First Amendment and cybersecurity scholar, and the author of the soon-to-be-released book “Liar in a Crowded Theater” — unpacks why the messages quoted in Dominion's brief might be the stuff of "nightmares" for Fox. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Hosted by Andrew Keen, Keen On features conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers and writers about the economic, political, and technological issues being discussed in the news, right now. In this episode, Andrew is joined by Jeff Kosseff, author of The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. Jeff Kosseff is Associate Professor in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department and author of the bestselling book, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting and the recipient of the George Polk Award in National Reporting. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we discuss The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech by Jeff Kosseff. Next time we'll discuss The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements by Eric Hoffer.

1. Introduction: Caleb O. Brown2. Doug Bandow and Justin Logan on NATO3. Rachel Furguson, Marcus Witcher, and Ameshia Cross on Black Liberation Through the Marketplace4. Jeff Kosseff and Patrick Eddington on The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech5. Thomas Berry and Andy Craig on the Electoral Count Act See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Why did those opposed to or in favor of the Constitution write under pseudonyms? Why did Occupy Wall Street protestors wear Guy Fawkes masks? Why do so many people seek to maintain a level of anonymity in their online activities—including web surfing and posting on social media? In the debate over the right to conceal one's identity versus the potential harms of anonymity, is it possible to strike a constitutionally sound balance? In his latest book, The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech, Jeff Kosseff tackles these and other questions through primary‐​source research and interviews with participants in the debates, as well as through court cases that have shaped the current legal and political climate impacting anonymous speech and the First Amendment. Join us for a discussion about Jeff Kosseff's timely new book. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Jeff Kosseff discusses the need for national-level cybersecurity laws and the impact of 1st Amendment rights in the online world. Jeff is an associate professor of Cybersecurity Law at the US Naval Academy and the author of multiple cybersecurity textbooks, including Cybersecurity Law and The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, and is currently writing United States of Anonymous Speech. (THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL, INVESTMENT, OR MEDICAL ADVICE. PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY, FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND/OR A DOCTOR FOR YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS. THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE DOD). Season 1 of The Justice Podcast (AKA "Bitwise Bobby") addresses complex policy challenges facing the United States. The mission is not to sway people's opinions or change their minds in minutes. It is simply to provide insight. Subject-matter experts and ordinary people, alike, have different perspectives. We can benefit from learning about those differing opinions and the thought processes behind them. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/bobby-stroup/support

Michael speaks with US Naval Academy Professor Jeff Kosseff, about his nonfiction narrative history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, titled "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet." Original air date 29 May 2020. The book was published on 15 April 2019.

This episode, It's Complicated: Facebook's Liability for Users' Posts, poses the questions ‘When is Facebook (or any other platform) legally responsible for users' bad behavior? And when should they be?' The current answer is found mostly in a federal statute, 47 U.S.C. § 230, that immunizes online intermediaries from liability for most user-generated content. Section 230 is the subject of constant controversy and numerous reform proposals, but has remained largely intact since 1996. Minnesota Law's Professor William McGeveran moderates the conversation between Danielle Citron, professor of law at the University of Virginia, and Jeff Kosseff, Associate Professor of Law at the United States Naval Academy as they try to answer the questions, “Is it time to change Section 230? And If so, how?” This webinar discussion was recorded on April 25th, 2022. It is also available for viewing on the Minnesota Law YouTube channel. (https://youtu.be/i0T5_aMPmE4) A transcript of this episode is available here: https://z.umn.edu/Ep20Transcript Learn more about the University of Minnesota Law School by visiting law.umn.edu and following Minnesota Law on Twitter twitter.com/UofMNLawSchool.

Take a look at Elon Musk's tweet, which came at the same time as news that Twitter had accepted his takeover bid. He hits all the right notes. Sample the following bit: "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated..." The tweet also had a short list of other goals – Making Twitter better than before by enhancing the product with new features. Making the algorithms open source to increase trust. Defeating the spam bots. And, authenticating all humans. In particular, the last goal, the one about authenticating all humans, has set off a lot of speculation over Twitter, not helped in the least by the fact that no details exist at the moment about how Musk proposes to do this. And, there are legitimate and serious concerns involved. Take a look at what one leading expert has said on the issue, that too quite fittingly over tweets.   Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the US Naval Academy, tweeted that there was at least a chance that authenticating all humans could compromise a Twitter user's ability to be anonymous. Now, Kosseff made it clear that he wasn't sure about what this stated objective specifically meant. However, with that caveat, he explained some of the concerns that could arise. Kosseff pointed out that at least some high-profile commentators had interpreted the ‘authenticating all humans' plan as banning of anonymity or requiring ID verification. Why would that be bad? Kosseff explained that Twitter's pseudonymity had made it possible for many people to speak publicly when they wouldn't have the luxury of speaking under their real names on Facebook. He gave the example of the LGBTQ community, whistleblowers, and political dissidents, among others. Kosseff said that even if people could still post under pseudonyms, the collection of identification data at registration would shut out many people. Pavan Duggal, cyber law expert and advocate at the Supreme Court of India says Twitter is an intermediary under IT Act 2000 and it is not obligated under the law to collect sensitive user data for KYC. Twitter also not barred from collecting such data. As such this could help govt attribute specific tweets to specific people, he says. Mind you, this is one interpretation, among others, of what Musk might have meant. But, many Twitter users are still worried. Note that Musk has called spam bots the ‘single most annoying problem' on Twitter. Even if Musk literally meant authenticating a Twitter user as human, it is not necessary that all methods Twitter could adopt to do so would have a negative impact on user privacy and anonymity.   According to Devangshu Datta of Business Standard, detecting a bot is easier than authenticating a human. Bots have high volume, focused tweeting, and they are often set up by the same or contiguous IP addresses. And all of this is easy to analyse and detect, says Dutta, by using sophisticated methods like analysing language etc. When trying to detect humans vs bots, it's easier to focus on the bots, he says.  But, why would people jump to such a conclusion? After all, Musk could simply be suggesting that Twitter's verification system be modified. All the speculation might be arising due to the political context, especially in the West. Take the example of the United Kingdom. During the pandemic, there have been growing demands in the UK to prohibit anonymous social media accounts, with the belief that anonymity provides a cloak to those engaging in online abuse and racism, among other hate speeches. This is an opinion shared by many across the world.   However, research has shown that people are still likely to abuse each other over social media even if they don't enjoy anonymity. As of February 2021, Twitter has 15 million users in India. What Musk means when he says ‘authenticating all humans' will have

Wherein we are joined by Jeff Kosseff, associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department, to discuss anonymity's pros and cons (and hopefully, his book "The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech"). Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this edition of The Other Side of Midnight: Frank Morano is going to teach you a lesson! Trita Parsi, co-founder & executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, as well as the founder and former president of the National Iranian American Council talks on Ukraine, Yemin, and Iran. Frank speaks with Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy and an author, whose latest book is “The United States of Anonymous”. Then Craig Stone, co-host of “Due For A Win: The Atlantic City and Casino Biz Podcast” for the AC report! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Frank speaks with Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cyber-security law at the United States Naval Academy and an author, whose latest book is “The United States of Anonymous” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet” on Section 230 talks about his new book: “The United States of Anonymous” Download the Callin app for iOS and Android to listen to this podcast live, call in, and more! Also available at callin.com

In 2019, Jeff Kosseff published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet, the definitive "biography" of the controversial law known... The post In Defense of Online Anonymity appeared first on Reason.com.

The author of the definitive history of Section 230 is back with a controversial new book, The United States of Anonymous.

In the years leading up to the American Revolution, a pseudonymous writer who called himself “Junius” came under scrutiny for his letters protesting the abuses by the Crown against his fellow Englishmen. Professor Jeff Kosseff recounts the myriad motivations Junius had for remaining anonymous (his identity is still not known to this day) in his new book The United States of Anonymous. From there, Kosseff explores “how the right to anonymity has shaped American values, politics, business, security, and discourse, particularly as technology has enabled people to separate their identities from their communications.”Who are the Junius's today whose anonymity requires protection?Jeff Kosseff is an Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy. He is the author of Cybersecurity Law (Wiley), the first comprehensive textbook on U.S. cybersecurity laws and regulations, and in Spring 2019 he published The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet (Cornell University Press), a nonfiction narrative history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Jeff has practiced cybersecurity and privacy law, and clerked for Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He is a graduate of Georgetown University Law Center and the University of Michigan. Before becoming a lawyer, he was a journalist for The Oregonian and was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting.

Jeff Kosseff's last book turned out to be pretty prescient. He published “The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet,” a deep look at the history and future of Section 230, right as those 26 words became central to the regulatory fight over the future of the internet.With his next book, Kosseff, a professor at the Naval Academy, may have done the same thing. The book is titled “The United States of Anonymous,” and it deals with the centuries-old argument about whether people should be allowed to say things without having to identify themselves. In the U.S., courts have given a lot of leeway and protection to anonymous speakers, but the internet has changed the equation, and companies and governments alike are still figuring out what to do.Kosseff joined the Source Code podcast to discuss his new book, how technologies like bulletin boards and Tor and facial recognition are changing the way we think about anonymity, and why he thinks that even though anonymity allows bad people to do bad things, he thinks it's still worth preserving. And even fighting for.For more on the topics in this episode:Jeff KosseffJeff Kosseff on TwitterThe United States of AnonymousThe Twenty-Six Words That Created The InternetHow Facebook's real-name policy changed social media forever“The Phone in My Pocket Was a Weapon Being Used Against Me”For all the links and stories, head to Source Code's homepage.

In this episode, A'ndre talks to Jeff Kosseff, Associate Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the US Naval Academy, about his forthcoming book, The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech. Professor Kosseff discusses how the right to anonymity has shaped American values, politics, business, security, and discourse, particularly as technology has enabled people to separate their identities from their communications. 

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's recent testimony before Congress has set in motion a renewed cycle of outrage over the company's practices—and a renewed round of discussion around what, if anything, Congress should do to rein Facebook in. But how workable are these proposals, really?This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, and the guy that has literally written not just the book on this, but two of them. He is the author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book about Section 230, and he has another book coming out next year about First Amendment protections for anonymous speech, titled “The United States of Anonymous.” So Jeff is very well positioned to evaluate recent suggestions that Facebook should, for example, limit the ability of young people to create what users call Finstas, a second, secret Instagram account for a close circle of friends—or Haugen's suggestion that the government should regulate how Facebook amplifies certain content through its algorithms. Jeff discussed the importance of online anonymity, the danger of skipping past the First Amendment when proposing tech reforms, and why he thinks that Section 230 reform has become unavoidable … even if that reform might not make any legal or policy sense. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Politicians and social media influencers often justify censoring what they believe is "misinformation" by arguing that you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity-law professor at the United States Naval Academy, joins Boyd to discuss his new piece in The Atlantic picking apart that argument. They also talk about why letting the government determine what we can say has serious implications for free speech.   See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Wherein we are joined by law professor Jeff Kosseff to discuss his new "The United States of Anonymous" Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, telling senators that Facebook and Instagram stoke division, harm children, and avoid transparency and any consequences for their damaging effects. Her testimony amplified calls for regulation of the platforms. On today's episode we consider a variety of proposed reforms, whether they would violate any other laws and whether they would be constitutional. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by internet law experts Jeff Kosseff of the United States Naval Academy and Nate Persily of Stanford Law School. They also consider why it is so difficult to regulate the platforms as well as the unintended consequences that may arise if they are regulated, and unpack prior cases on free speech that influenced the overall approach to Internet regulation from its very beginning, including the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen's recent testimony before Congress has set in motion a renewed cycle of outrage over the company's practices—and a renewed round of discussion around what, if anything, Congress should do to rein Facebook in. But how workable are these proposals, really?This week on Arbiters of Truth, our series on the online information ecosystem, Evelyn Douek and Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jeff Kosseff, an associate professor of cybersecurity law at the United States Naval Academy, and the guy that has literally written not just the book on this, but two of them. He is the author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book about Section 230, and he has another book coming out next year about First Amendment protections for anonymous speech, titled “The United States of Anonymous.” So Jeff is very well positioned to evaluate recent suggestions that Facebook should, for example, limit the ability of young people to create what users call Finstas, a second, secret Instagram account for a close circle of friends—or Haugen's suggestion that the government should regulate how Facebook amplifies certain content through its algorithms. Jeff discussed the importance of online anonymity, the danger of skipping past the First Amendment when proposing tech reforms, and why he thinks that Section 230 reform has become unavoidable … even if that reform might not make any legal or policy sense.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, telling senators that Facebook and Instagram stoke division, harm children, and avoid transparency and any consequences for their damaging effects. Her testimony amplified calls for regulation of the platforms. On today's episode we consider a variety of proposed reforms, whether they would violate any other laws and whether they would be constitutional. Host Jeffrey Rosen is joined by internet law experts Jeff Kosseff of the United States Naval Academy and Nate Persily of Stanford Law School. They also consider why it is so difficult to regulate the platforms as well as the unintended consequences that may arise if they are regulated, and unpack prior cases on free speech that influenced the overall approach to Internet regulation from its very beginning, including the passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution.

Jeff Kosseff exposes the workings of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has lived mostly in the shadows since its enshrinement in 1996. Because many segments of American society now exist largely online, Kosseff argues that we need to understand and pay attention to what Section 230 really means and how it affects what we like, share, and comment upon every day. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In the months since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, one thing people on both sides of the political aisle seem to agree on, is that social media bears at least some responsibility for spreading the lies that led to the attack. But, is that true? And if it is, even a little bit, what should lawmakers do about it? Those questions are what [Un]Common Law will explore in our new series called “UnChecked.” A look at the legal doctrines, case history, and legislation that gave birth to the internet as we know it. This first episode is all about Section 230, the law that makes it possible for companies like Facebook and Twitter to publish content created by their users. Specifically, Section 230 states that, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." In other words, online platforms can't be held liable for the speech that is posted on their sites. Almost as importantly, Section 230 also gives those platforms the freedom to moderate, or remove content as they see fit. Many Republicans say Section 230 enables tech companies to censor conservative voices. While some Democrats say the law has allowed platforms to wash their hands of harms associated with hate speech, terrorism, and harassment. Many lawmakers, from both parties, have expressed a willingness to make changes to the status quo, but what those changes look like has yet to be determined. In this episode of [Un]Common Law we hear from: Gigi Sohn, former FCC Counselor, now a fellow at the Georgetown Law Institute for Technology Law and Policy. Jeff Kosseff, professor of cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a book about Section 230 called, “The 26 Words That Created the Internet.” Rebecca Kern, Technology and Cyber Policy reporter for Bloomberg Government. Jessica Melugin, director of the Center for Technology & Innovation at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Elizabeth Banker, former Deputy General Counsel at the Internet Association. Nabiha Syed, attorney and president of The Markup, an investigative journalism startup that explores how powerful actors use technology to reshape society.

Two experts on Section 230 and the First Amendment discuss the fundamentals of these subjects with Aspen Digital's Executive Director Vivian Schiller. Mary Anne Franks is a professor of law at the University of Miami and a nationally and internationally recognized expert on the intersection of civil rights and technology. Jeff Kosseff is an assistant professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department who (literally) wrote the book on S230 called The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, a history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This session is part of a series of expert briefings on mis and disinformation hosted by the Aspen Institute in tandem with our Commission on Information Disorder to help make sense of the various facets of the information crisis. They are designed as a resource for the commissioners and the broader public. To learn more about Aspen Digital's Commission on Information Disorder, visit www.AspenInfoCommission.org Follow us on Twitter and Facebook @AspenDigital.

Law professor Jeff Kosseff explains the long history of Section 230, the law that made the modern internet possible.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Interviews with https://ssw.uconn.edu/person/caitlin-elsaesser-phd/ (Caitlin Elsaesser), a clinical social worker and researcher at the University of Connecticut who studies the connections between youth violence and social media and https://www.usna.edu/CyberCenter/People/Biographies/Kosseffbio.php (Jeff Kosseff), a professor of cybersecurity law in the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department and author of the book The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet- A history of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Also featuring Bryan Jones, cofounder of Tech Policy Press, and Romi Geller, Tech Policy Press fellow and a research assistant at the Center for Media Engagement at UT Austin. Hosted by Justin Hendrix. Visit https://techpolicy.press/ (Tech Policy Press) and follow us on https://twitter.com/techpolicypress (Twitter) for more.

Section 230 and content moderation are hot topics in Washington amid calls for change to the tech liability shield. While some of these efforts come from a misunderstanding of Section 230, there is room for reform that could open the door to hold social platforms accountable.In Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 26, Host Jay Edelson, nationally recognized plaintiff’s attorney and founder of Edelson PC, and Guest Jeff Kosseff, professor of cybersecurity at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, discuss Big Tech regulation, Section 230 reform efforts, First Amendment protections, and digital anonymity.Jay and Jeff first discuss what Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act really means and why so many lawmakers and so-called experts get it wrong (5:10). Jeff says he supports some efforts to change the liability shield citing court rulings that say platforms don’t have to take down posts because of Section 230 (6:20). The discussion turns to former President Trump and the GOP’s efforts to repeal Section 230 (9:00). Jay and Jeff expose why these efforts actually harm the GOP’s arguments over conservative censorship and would lead to more aggressive actions by social platforms to block content (10:00). Jay and Jeff continue with their discussion on the GOP’s strategy against the Big Tech companies arguing that Republican arguments aren’t about legal strategy, but rather they are focused on politics (12:30). Jeff believes it's part of an effort to pressure Big Tech so they will do less moderation – something that is unlikely to happen after platforms doubled-down after the January 6th attack on our Capitol (14:30).Next, Jay and Jeff turn their attention to the judicial system and how the U.S. Supreme Court played a role in broadening Section 230 (20:00). Jeff discusses options for making it easier on people to have a chance against social platforms, including allowing limited early discovery. Later in the show, Jeff explains why so many people confuse First Amendment protections with Section 230 (34:00). The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private businesses and only restricts the actions of the government. On the other hand, the dominance of Big Tech platforms show that they could censor anyone if it’s a message they don’t believe in (37:30).To wrap the show, Jeff discusses his upcoming book United States of Anonymous Speech and how courts have created First Amendment rights to online anonymity (40:00). Jeff and Jay end the show by discussing the downside to anonymity and how to balance the need to mitigate real world harms it causes.Check out the show for even more from Jay and Jeff and for a preview of our upcoming animated rap video (0:55).If you liked the show, please subscribe and leave a review. You can also send us an email at podcast@edelson.com with any questions or for guest booking.Connect with us:Website: https://www.edelsoncreative.com/#podcastFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/edelsonlawTwitter: https://twitter.com/EdelsonCreativeLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edelson-pcConnect with Jeff:Twitter: https://twitter.com/jkosseffWebsite: https://www.jeffkosseff.comU.S. Naval Academy Profile: https://www.usna.edu/CyberCenter/People/Biographies/Kosseffbio.phpJeff’s Books:United States of Anonymous Speech (Upcoming)The Twenty-Six Words That Created the InternetRecent Non-Compliant Podcast Episodes:Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 25: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/non-compliant-podcast-episode-25-one-where-we-talk/id1491233296?i=1000506637686Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 24: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/non-compliant-podcast-episode-24-one-where-we-talk/id1491233296?i=1000505141465Non-Compliant Podcast Episode 23: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/non-compliant-podcast-episode-23-one-where-we-talk/id1491233296?i=1000503229823

Private entities—in particular, technology giants like internet service providers, email services and social networks—play a vital role in helping law enforcement fight child pornography online. But the involvement of private entities does not eliminate the Fourth Amendment issues that come with electronic surveillance. In fact, the more the private entities cooperate with the government, the more likely it is that courts will consider them government agents, and the evidence they collect will be subject to the same Fourth Amendment restrictions as apply to law enforcement agencies. Jeff Kosseff is an assistant professor at the United States Naval Academy's Cyber Science Department. As part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series, he published a paper entitled, "Online Service Providers and the Fight Against Child Exploitation: The Fourth Amendment Agency Dilemma." Alan Rozenshtein spoke with Jeff about how the government and internet companies can thread the needle on fighting digital child exploitation without running afoul of the Constitution.

In this special bonus episode, Jane Coaston makes her hosting debut on “The Argument” to discuss one of her favorite subjects: Section 230. As scholar Jeff Kosseff defined it, the “26 words that created the internet” is part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, and it protects websites from liability. The law also allows internet companies to moderate third-party content on their sites.The banning of President Trump from many social media platforms has led to renewed calls from both political parties to amend or revoke Section 230. Jane debates what changing the law might mean with Klon Kitchen, director of the Center for Technology Policy at the Heritage Foundation, and Danielle Keats Citron, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law and author of “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act) has come under a lot of fire recently. But what does the law actually say, and how would changing it affect the internet as we know it? I discuss these questions and more in today's interview with Jeff Kosseff. Jeff is an assistant professor of cybersecurity law in the US Naval Academy's cyber science department. He is also the author of the 2019 book, https://www.amazon.com/Twenty-Six-Words-That-Created-Internet/dp/1501714414 (The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet).

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has come under a lot of fire recently. But what does the law actually say, and how would changing it affect the internet as we know it? I discuss these questions and more in today’s interview with Jeff Kosseff. Jeff is an assistant professor of cybersecurity law in the […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/political-economy-james-pethokoukis/jeff-kosseff-setting-the-record-straight-on-section-230/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Political Economy with James Pethokoukis in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

For years, President Donald Trump has been calling for the repeal of Section 230, the part of the Communications Decency Act from 1996 that says an online publisher or platform like YouTube or Facebook can’t be sued for things that are posted by other people. The president recently said he would actually veto the country’s annual defense spending bill if it didn’t include a repeal of Section 230. But, see, a lot of what people say they don’t like about Section 230, like claiming that social media platforms censor conservatives, really has nothing to do with that law. Molly speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of a book on Section 230 called “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

For years, President Donald Trump has been calling for the repeal of Section 230, the part of the Communications Decency Act from 1996 that says an online publisher or platform like YouTube or Facebook can’t be sued for things that are posted by other people. The president recently said he would actually veto the country’s annual defense spending bill if it didn’t include a repeal of Section 230. But, see, a lot of what people say they don’t like about Section 230, like claiming that social media platforms censor conservatives, really has nothing to do with that law. Molly speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of a book on Section 230 called “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

For years, President Donald Trump has been calling for the repeal of Section 230, the part of the Communications Decency Act from 1996 that says an online publisher or platform like YouTube or Facebook can’t be sued for things that are posted by other people. The president recently said he would actually veto the country’s annual defense spending bill if it didn’t include a repeal of Section 230. But, see, a lot of what people say they don’t like about Section 230, like claiming that social media platforms censor conservatives, really has nothing to do with that law. Molly speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of a book on Section 230 called “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

For years, President Donald Trump has been calling for the repeal of Section 230, the part of the Communications Decency Act from 1996 that says an online publisher or platform like YouTube or Facebook can’t be sued for things that are posted by other people. The president recently said he would actually veto the country’s annual defense spending bill if it didn’t include a repeal of Section 230. But, see, a lot of what people say they don’t like about Section 230, like claiming that social media platforms censor conservatives, really has nothing to do with that law. Molly speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of a book on Section 230 called “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” Your support makes our podcast possible — become a Marketplace Investor today to keep us going strong.

The debate over how social media platforms deal with content hit a new peak this week after Twitter fact-checked several of President Donald Trump’s tweets. That prompted Trump to sign an executive order trying to limit platforms’ legal protections. Currently, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet platforms aren’t legally responsible for most content posted by users. Host Molly Wood speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book on Section 230.

The debate over how social media platforms deal with content hit a new peak this week after Twitter fact-checked several of President Donald Trump’s tweets. That prompted Trump to sign an executive order trying to limit platforms’ legal protections. Currently, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet platforms aren’t legally responsible for most content posted by users. Host Molly Wood speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book on Section 230.

The debate over how social media platforms deal with content hit a new peak this week after Twitter fact-checked several of President Donald Trump’s tweets. That prompted Trump to sign an executive order trying to limit platforms’ legal protections. Currently, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, internet platforms aren’t legally responsible for most content posted by users. Host Molly Wood speaks with Jeff Kosseff, author of “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet,” a book on Section 230.

The potential for real war in 2020 might make the trade disputes of 2019 seem quaint and distant. But cast your mind back, if you can, to three weeks ago, when the fate of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement seemed to rest in part on a semi-obscure passage of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. It says online platforms are not legally liable for what people say or do in the spaces they run. Trillions of dollars in company valuation and the sharing of content as we know it rests on the rule, which would expand to Mexico and Canada under the trade deal. So is it time to revisit Section 230? If you got rid of it, what kind of rules would replace it? And what platforms would even be left? Last summer, we asked Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy and the author of “The 26 Words That Created the Internet.”

The phrase “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” doesn’t exactly still beating hearts — and yet that provision may be responsible for the internet as we know it. So argues Jeff Kosseff in his new book, “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” By stating that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service […] The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/tech-platforms-and-section-230-is-it-time-to-change-how-we-regulate-the-internet/ (Tech platforms and Section 230: Is it time to change how we regulate the internet?) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

The phrase “Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act” doesn’t exactly still beating hearts — and yet that provision may be responsible for the internet as we know it. So argues Jeff Kosseff in his new book, “The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet.” By stating that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service […] The post Tech platforms and Section 230: Is it time to change how we regulate the internet? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute - AEI.

Recode's Kara Swisher convenes a panel of experts to talk about section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: cybersecurity law professor Jeff Kosseff, author of "The Twenty Six Words That Created The Internet"; lawyer Carrie Goldberg, author of "Nobody’s Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls"; and the CEO and founder of Techdirt, Mike Masnick. Follow us Kara Swisher (@karaswisher), host Jeff Kosseff (@jkosseff), guest Carrie Goldberg (@cagoldberglaw), guest Mike Masnick (@mmasnick), guest Erica Anderson (@EricaAmerica), executive producer Eric Johnson (@HeyHeyESJ), producer More to explore If you haven't already, subscribe to Recode Decode Subscribe to Recode's other podcasts: Recode Media, Pivot, and Land of the Giants Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeff Kosseff is a Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the US Naval Academy. His recent book, The Twenty-Six Words That Created The Internet, tells the amazing story of the law that allowed the growth of today's Internet giants. Without this law, known as Section 230, we would not have today's Google, Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube. In recent times, Section 230 is under threat by legislators on both the left and right who feel that these companies have become too powerful.

We're back to bring you a special episode on CDA Section 230 or, as one of our guests put it “the 26 words that created the Internet." This law paved the way for the explosion of Facebook, YouTube, and numerous other internet companies by protecting them from being held liable for what users say and do on their platforms. This also allowed each platform the freedom to develop its own content moderation standards. But, as these platforms have grown larger and central to public discourse, some are worried that section 230 gives tech companies far too much influence in who can say what. So, is 230 due for a reform? And if so, how? To unpack this topic further, Mercatus Scholar Brian Knight hosts today's episode.  In addition, we're joined by Jennifer Huddleston, Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, whose research involves tech policy and law, Jeff Kosseff, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy, Cyber Science Department, and the author of The 26 Words That Created The Internet, and finally, Adam Candeub, a professor of law and the Director of the Intellectual Property, Information, and Communications Law program at Michigan State University. Want to get in touch with one of our scholars featured on the Download? Email Kate De Lanoy at kdelanoy@mercatus.gmu.edu.  Today's What's on Tap beverage is Rhinegeist Brewery's Bubbles Rose' Ale from Cincinnati, Ohio.

On this episode, cybersecurity professor Jeff Kosseff discusses his new book "The Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet" (Cornell University Press, 2019) about the past, present, and future of Section 230. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/jeff-kosseff-on-the-26-words-that-created-the-internet/ (Jeff Kosseff on the twenty-six words that created the internet) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

You might not know what Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act says, but it affects your life every day. This short passage of the law says online platforms are not legally liable for what people say or do in the spaces they run. Trillions of dollars in company valuation and the sharing of content as we know it rests on the rule. But in the era of deep fakes, election meddling and radicalization by algorithm, is it time to revisit Section 230? If you got rid of it, what kind of rules would replace it? And what platforms would even be left? We asked Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the U.S. Naval Academy and the author of “The 26 Words that Created the Internet.”

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user-generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platforms it protects face increasing scrutiny, Twenty-Six Words demystifies this little-known yet vital statute.

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996).Those 26 words (and not a member of Congress) invented the internet as we know it. These words protect internet platforms from lawsuits based on user-generated content, allowing them to open their doors to a dizzying variety of sentiment and speech. Absent that sentence, social media platforms would have strong incentives to suppress any speech that might cause them legal woes. Or, in contrast, they might avoid legal liability by not moderating their forums at all, likely rendering them unusable. Jeff Kosseff tells the story of the institutions that flourished as a result of this powerful statute. He introduces us to those who created CDA 230, those who advocated for it, and those who were involved in some of the most prominent cases decided under the law. As section 230 and the platforms it protects face increasing scrutiny, Twenty-Six Words demystifies this little-known yet vital statute. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This episode we speak with Jeff Kosseff, author of the new book, The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet. Jeff Kosseff is Assistant Professor in the US Naval Academy's Cyber Science department, where he teaches cybersecurity law. He has practiced technology and First Amendment law, and clerked for Judges Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Leonie M. Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District Court of Virginia. He was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting and the recipient of the George Polk Award in National Reporting. Follow Jeff on Twitter: https://twitter.com/jkosseff We spoke to Jeff about the incredible impact Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has had on the internet as we know it, some of the complicated issues surrounding free speech protections, and the dangers the law is facing in Congress today. As a loyal listener to the podcast we’d like to offer you a special 30% discount on Jeff’s new book. To receive your discount please go to cornellpress.cornell.edu and use the promo code 09POD. If you live in the UK use the discount code CSANNOUNCE and visit the website combinedacademic.co.uk.

In this episode, Jeff Kosseff, Assistant Professor of Cybersecurity Law at the United States Naval Academy, discusses his new book, "The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet," which is published by Cornell University Press. Kosseff begins by describing the origin of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which exempts internet service provides from liability for third-party content. He explains how Section 230 facilitated the development of the internet as we know it today, including social media. But he also recognizes the harms it has facilitated, including the terrible costs it has imposed on some people. He closes by reflecting on how the implementation and interpretation of Section 230 could be improved. Kosseff is on Twitter at @jkosseff. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.