POPULARITY
12 episodes with knight first amendment institute
7 episodes with knight first amendment institute
9 episodes with knight first amendment institute
9 episodes with knight first amendment institute
7 episodes with knight first amendment institute
6 episodes with knight first amendment institute
2 episodes with knight first amendment institute
3 episodes with knight first amendment institute
2 episodes with knight first amendment institute
Protestors are blocking highways and raising their voices in Israel today, calling for the release of hostages, as they mark 600 days since the horrors of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. One of those hostages was Omer Shem Tov, who was kidnapped by Hamas and held for more than 500 days before being released in February. Bianna Golodryga spoke to him in New York about what he went through, and what he is focused on now. Also on today's show: Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; author Leah Litman ("Lawless") Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Wednesday, May 14th, 2025Today, the government failed to file its privilege log on time in the Abrego Garcia case prompting Judge Xinis to order them to file it; a trump appointed judge in Pennsylvania becomes the first to call Trumps invocation of the Alien Enemies Act lawful; the USDA reverses course and commits to restore purged climate webpages in response to a lawsuit brought by farmers; more than a dozen states slapped the Trump administration with two new lawsuits on Tuesday accusing it of withholding funding in retaliation for immigration policies; Chuck Schumer says he is placing a hold on Trump DOJ nominees amid questions on Qatar's luxury jet gift; the FBI has been ordered to prioritize immigration as DOJ scales back white collar cases; and a magistrate judge cautioned Trump's DoJ on making public statements about the mayor of Newark; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, Helix27% Off Sitewide plus Free Bedding Bundle with any Luxe or Elite Mattress Order, when you go to HelixSleep.com/dailybeansThank You, Fast Growing TreesGet 15% off your first purchase. FastGrowingTrees.com/dailybeansThank you to our thousands and thousands of sustaining members, and please join us and support independent media at patreon.com/muellershewrote for as little as $3 a month.MSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueGuest: Claudia BrachoUrban Peace InstituteDonate - Urban Peace InstituteUrban Peace Institute - YouTube; @urbanpeaceinst - Bluesky; @UrbanPeaceInst - twitter; @urbanpeaceinstitute - InstagramStories:A New Jersey mayor's arrest at ICE facility fires up Democrats from New York to Chicago | POLITICOFBI ordered to prioritize immigration, as DOJ scales back white collar cases | ReutersStates accuse Trump administration of holding emergency relief hostage over immigration policy | Courthouse News ServiceChuck Schumer says he is placing a hold on Trump DOJ nominees amid questions on Qatar's luxury jet gift | NBC NewsUSDA Reverses Course, Commits to Restore Purged Climate Webpages in Response to Farmers' Lawsuit | EarthjusticeGood Trouble:RFK Jr just tweeted the following message: “If you know a regulation that's making our health system worse, not better-tell us. Submit your ideas at regulations.gov/deregulation. We're listening. In order to Make America Healthy Again, providers and caretakers must have the critical opportunity to focus on preventing and treating chronic diseases. Their time and talent should not be spent doing unnecessary or burdensome paperwork”Find Upcoming Demonstrations And Actions:50501 MovementJune 14th Nationwide Demonstrations - NoKings.orgIndivisible.orgShare your Good News or Good Trouble:dailybeanspod.com/goodFrom The Good NewsDepeche Mode.comDepeche Mode - YouTubeDepeche Mode - Where's the Revolution (Official Video)House of Black Cat MagicReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Federal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen.Share your Good News or Good Trouble:https://www.dailybeanspod.com/good/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewrote , Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote,Dana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts
Trump is weaker after caving on tariffs - Harold Meyerson analyzes the new political landscape - and assesses the economic damage.Also: Trump's tariffs are not really about trade, they're a form of blackmail – but the alternative is not a return to the free trade policies introduced by Clinton and Obama. Lori Wallach of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project explains what kind of tariffs we need, combined with government support for reindustrialization.Plus: A major lawsuit challenging Trump over his efforts to deport pro-Gaza campus activists has been brought by faculty members at their universities. Jameel Jaffer reports on the AAUP case; he's executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a former deputy legal director of the ACLU.
Trump's tariffs are not really about trade, they're a form of blackmail – but the alternative is not a return to the free trade policies introduced by Clinton and Obama. Lori Wallach of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project explains what kind of tariffs we need, combined with government support for reindustrialization.Also on this episode: A major lawsuit challenging Trump over his efforts to deport pro-Gaza campus activists has been brought by faculty members at their universities. Jameel Jaffer reports on the AAUP case; he's executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a former deputy legal director of the ACLU.Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
Trump's tariffs are not really about trade, they're a form of blackmail – but the alternative is not a return to the free trade policies introduced by Clinton and Obama. Lori Wallach of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project explains what kind of tariffs we need, combined with government support for reindustrialization.Also on this episode: A major lawsuit challenging Trump over his efforts to deport pro-Gaza campus activists has been brought by faculty members at their universities. Jameel Jaffer reports on the AAUP case; he's executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a former deputy legal director of the ACLU.
From January 26, 2024: In front of a live audience at the Knight Foundation's INFORMED conference in Miami, Florida, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security; Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic about government surveillance of open source social media.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.
Detaining foreign students over their activism is the “kind of policy that ends democracies.” That's what Jameel Jaffer tells Audie this week. He's a law professor and Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. We also hear from Franziska Wild, student senior editor at The Georgetown Voice, about the chilling effect the detentions are having on campus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
What happened at Elon Musk's unexpected White House press conference alongside President Trump? Reuters' Jeff Mason was there. Semafor's Max Tani and First Amendment expert Katie Fallow discuss Trump's $20 million lawsuit against CBS News. We also examine the impact of US AID cuts on global media, with BBC Media Action's Simon Bishop addressing claims of foreign influence. Wired's Lauren Goode profiles venture capitalist Marc Andreessen in a new series on Silicon Valley elites and MSNBC's Chris Hayes discusses his book The Siren's Call, all about the attention economy and big tech's grip on our focus.Guests: Max Tani, Media Editor, Semafor; Katie Fallow, litigation expert, Knight First Amendment Institute; Simon Bishop, CEO, BBC Media Action; Chris Hayes, Host, MSNBC, Lauren Goode, Senior Writer, Wired; Jeff Mason, White House Correspondent, Reuters Presenter: Katie Razzall Producer: Simon Richardson Assistant Producer: Lucy Wai
On Friday, Jan. 17, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, the law which could effectively ban TikTok from operating in the United States, unless it is sold to a U.S. company. The case is the latest round in a legal battle involving free speech, national security, and the popular social media app, which is used by more than 170 million Americans. U.S. lawmakers argue that TikTok's ties to the Chinese government raise serious data protection and content manipulation concerns. Free speech advocates see the law as a fundamental afront to the First Amendment. How did the Supreme Court decide the case? And how might this decision impact future efforts to regulate social media companies with ties to foreign governments? Joining the show to discuss the Court's opinion and its implications are Marty Lederman, Asha Rangappa, and Xiangnong (George) Wang. Marty is an Executive Editor at Just Security and a Professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He has served in senior roles at the Justice Department, including in the Office of Legal Counsel. Asha is an Editor at Just Security, a Senior Lecturer at Yale's Jackson Institute for Global Affairs, and a former FBI Agent specializing in counterintelligence investigations. George is a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Show Notes: Marty Lederman (Bluesky – X)Asha Rangappa (Bluesky – X) Xiangnong (George) Wang (Bluesky – LinkedIn)Paras Shah (LinkedIn – X)Just Security's U.S. Supreme Court coverageJust Security's TikTok coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)
In TikTok v. Garland, the Supreme Court will determine whether TikTok—the social media platform used by an estimated 170 million Americans—can continue to operate in the United States under the ownership of a Chinese holding company. Jameel Jaffer of Columbia Law School and Zephyr Teachout of Fordham Law School join Jeffrey Rosen to debate whether the law that forces TikTok to be sold or banned violates the First Amendment. Resources: Jameel Jaffer, “Brief of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, Free Press, and PEN American Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners," TikTok v. Garland Jameel Jaffer, “The Supreme Court Must Intervene in the TikTok Case,” The New York Times (Dec. 10, 2024) Zephyr Teachout, “Brief of AMICI CURIAE Zephyr Teachout and Joel Thayer in Support of Respondent,” TikTok v. Garland United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Opinion of the Court, TikTok v. Garland Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (1986) Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) Moody v. NetChoice (2024) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
The much-anticipated argument of the future of TikTok in the US will be heard by the Supreme Court on Friday. Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Lydia Wheeler preview the case with Knight First Amendment Institute staff attorney Xiangnong (George) Wang. The Biden administration says the law, which effectively bans the social media site in the US unless sold by its Chinese owner, is necessary for national security. But the social media site and its users say its censorship. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases and Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
The US Supreme Court announced on Wednesday it would consider TikTok's challenge to legislation that could force the popular social media platform to be sold to a US company by Jan 19 or face a nationwide ban.12月18日，美国联邦最高法院宣布将考虑TikTok对“不卖就禁”法案的抗议。该法案要求TikTok这款热门社交媒体平台于1月19日前出售给一家美国公司，否则这款应用程序将在美国被禁用。The announcement came two days after TikTok filed a petition with the nation's highest court. At the center of the challenge is the legislation called the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act.这一宣布是在TikTok向美国联邦最高法院提交诉讼请求两天后作出的决定。此次抗议聚焦于国会今年3月通过的《保护美国人免受外国对手控制的应用程序侵害法》。Passed by Congress and signed into law by US President Joe Biden in April, the act requires that TikTok's Chinese parent company, Byte-Dance, divest its ownership within 270 days or face a ban in the US market, where the platform has 170 million users.该法案于今年4月由美国国会通过并经美国总统乔·拜登签署成为法律，要求TikTok中国母公司字节跳动在270天内放弃所有权，否则禁止其在美运行，而TikTok在美国拥有1.7亿用户。The law would prohibit the TikTok app from being used on both Google's and Apple's app stores and require web-hosting services to stop supporting the platform or face substantial financial consequences.该法律将禁止谷歌和苹果的应用商店提供TikTok下载使用，并要求互联网托管服务停止支持该平台，否则将面临巨额罚款。TikTok has insisted that the Justice Department's allegations are unfounded. The company has denied accusations that it was sharing user data with Chinese authorities or serving as a conduit for "Chinese propaganda".TikTok坚称美国司法部的指控毫无根据。该公司否认了有关其与中国政府共享用户数据或充当“中国宣传”渠道的指控。"The bigger issue here is that social media platforms are manipulating users and abusing personal information", and all of them are doing it no matter where they are from, said Ker Gibbs, an executive in residence with the China Business Studies Initiative at the University of San Francisco. "All the focus is on China, but Congress really should be looking at all the platforms that Americans are using," he told China Daily.旧金山大学中国企业管理研究所驻校高管克尔·吉布斯向《中国日报》表示：“更大的问题是社交媒体平台操纵用户并滥用个人信息。所有社交平台都在这么做，无论它们来自哪里。现在的焦点都在中国身上，但国会真正应该审视的是所有美国人正在使用的平台。”"There's a political case to make because so many small businesses are making money on TikTok, and they will be sorry to see it banned from the US," Gibbs said.吉布斯说：“从政治角度来看是有道理的，因为有很多小商户都在TikTok上赚钱，一旦它在美国被禁，这些小商户会非常遗憾。”In May, TikTok sued the US government to block the controversial law. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law earlier this month, finding the government's national security arguments legitimate.TikTok于5月起诉美国政府，要求阻止这项备受争议的法案。但在本月早些时候，哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院维持了这一法律，认为美国政府关于国家安全的论点是合理的。In response to the ruling, TikTok said that the law "was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people".针对这一裁决，TikTok回应称，该法律“是基于不准确、有缺陷和假设的信息而构思并推动实施的，导致了对美国人民的彻底审查”。"The TikTok ban, unless stopped, will silence the voices of over 170 million Americans here in the US and around the world on Jan 19,2025," the company said.该公司表示：“除非TikTok禁令被暂停，否则超过1.7亿美国人将于2025年1月19日被迫沉默。”The platform's legal challenge has garnered significant support from several civil rights organizations, who have voiced strong concerns over the constitutional implications of the potential ban.TikTok对该法律的抗议得到了一些美国民权组织的大力支持，他们对这项可能生效的禁令带来的宪法影响表示强烈担忧。A coalition, including the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or EFF, and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief on Tuesday, urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of the law.包括美国公民自由联盟（简称ACLU）、电子前沿基金会（简称EFF）和哥伦比亚大学骑士第一修正案研究所在内的联盟于12月17日提交了一份法庭之友书状，敦促美国联邦最高法院阻止该法律的执行。Patrick Toomey of the ACLU's National Security Project called the law "mass censorship" and stressed that the US Constitution "imposes an extraordinarily high bar" on such censorship.ACLU国家安全项目的帕特里克·图米称该法律为“大规模审查”，并强调美国宪法对这类审查“设置了极高的门槛”。"The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm," said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF, in a statement.EFF公民自由事务主管大卫·格林在一份声明中说：“政府不应基于对未来不确定危害的猜测而限制言论，尤其是达到这种程度的限制。”Negative consequences负面后果John Wihbey, an associate professor of media innovation and technology at Northeastern University, warned about negative consequences for US companies operating abroad, expressing concern over establishing a problematic global precedent.美国东北大学媒体创新与技术副教授约翰·维贝警告称这将对在海外运营的美国公司产生负面影响，并担忧这可能会树立一个有问题的全球先例。"My overall take is that there are going to be second- and third-order consequences from this we can't fully anticipate," he told the university's news outlet Northeastern Global News on Dec 6. "I think that's going to be really unfortunate," he added. "I'm worried about the precedent of it as a cascading norm around the world."12月6日，他告诉该校新闻机构《东北全球新闻》：“我的总体看法是，这将带来我们无法完全预见的二级和三级后果。我认为这将非常不幸。我担心这会成为世界各地普遍效仿的先例。”The law is set to take effect the day before the presidential inauguration on Jan 20. President-elect Donald Trump attempted to ban TikTok but failed in 2020 during his first term. He changed his stance by pledging to "save TikTok" during his campaign. Trump expressed having "a warm spot" for TikTok at a news conference on Monday. Then he met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida.该法律定于1月20日总统就职典礼前一天生效。当选总统唐纳德·特朗普在2020年第一任期内曾试图内禁止TikTok，但未能成功。他在竞选期间改变了立场，承诺要“拯救TikTok”。特朗普在12月16日的新闻发布会上表示，他对TikTok“颇有好感”。随后，他在佛罗里达州的马阿拉歌庄园会见了TikTok首席执行官周受资。The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Jan 10 from TikTok and government attorneys and representatives of app users challenging the ban.美国联邦最高法院将于1月10日听取TikTok、政府律师以及抗议禁令的应用用户代表的口头辩论。The court's swift acceptance of the case signals its recognition of the case's importance. As the final stop for a court case, the Supreme Court typically selects cases involving crucial constitutional questions or those that affect the entire nation.最高法院对此案的迅速受理表明其认为此案关系重大。作为法庭案件的最终裁决机构，最高法院通常只处理涉及关键宪法问题或影响全国的案件。The high court agrees to hear only about 80 cases each year from 7,000 to 8,000 petitions it receives, and it rules on only 1 percent of requests, according to The Pew Charitable Trusts.据皮尤慈善信托基金会称，在每年收到的7000至8000份份请愿中，最高法院只选择审理60至70起案件，并且只对其中1%的案件作出裁决。divestv.卖掉，出售（企业或其中一部分）
In the final episode of season two, you'll hear a recording of a Centre for Constitutional Studies Event from the summer of 2024, titled ‘This Ain't Texas, It's Tiktok.' The event features a discussion with Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and Emily Laidlaw, Associate Professor Law at the University of Calgary and Canada Research Chair in Cybersecurity Law. With Dax moderating, Jameel and Emily discuss the regulation of big tech platforms and the different law and policy environments between Canada and the United States.
From April 14, 2023: Over the past few years, TikTok has become a uniquely polarizing social media platform. On the one hand, millions of users, especially those in their teens and twenties, love the app. On the other hand, the government is concerned that TikTok's vulnerability to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party makes it a serious national security threat. There's even talk of banning the app altogether. But would that be legal? In particular, does the First Amendment allow the government to ban an application that's used by millions to communicate every day?On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Matt Perault, director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare Senior Editor and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, spoke with Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Mary-Rose Papendrea, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, to think through the legal and policy implications of a TikTok ban.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.
Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, offers legal analysis of the settlement between ABC and President-elect Trump, after the latter filed a defamation lawsuit against the news outlet and its anchor George Stephanopoulos, and what effect this and other threats and lawsuits by the president elect might have on the media.
Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, offers legal analysis of the settlement between ABC and President-elect Trump, after the latter filed a defamation lawsuit against the news outlet and its anchor George Stephanopoulos, and what effect this and other threats and lawsuits by the president elect might have on the media.
A report by CNN from inside a Syrian prison has become a flashpoint for media scrutiny after the featured prisoner, initially presented as a victim, was identified as a former member of Assad's Air Force Intelligence Directorate. David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent for NPR, examines the ethical dilemmas and journalistic standards in such high-stakes reporting. ABC News reached a $15m settlement with Donald Trump over a defamation claim stemming from false statements made by one of its star presenters. Katie Fallow, Deputy Litigation Director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, explores the legal complexities of defamation cases involving public figures and the implications for media accountability in a polarised landscape. The Map Men, winners of TikTok's UK and Ireland video of the year, have turned their passion for maps into viral success. Jay Foreman, one half of the duo, discusses their creative process, the balance between humour and education in their work, and how their unique take on cartography resonates with audiences across platforms. Presenters: Katie Razzall and Ros Atkins Producer: Lucy Wai Assistant Producer: Martha Owen A report by CNN from inside a Syrian prison has become a flashpoint for media scrutiny after the featured prisoner, initially presented as a victim, was identified as a former member of Assad's Air Force Intelligence Directorate. David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent for NPR, examines the ethical dilemmas and journalistic standards in such high-stakes reporting. ABC News reached a $15m settlement with Donald Trump over a defamation claim stemming from false statements made by one of its star presenters. Katie Fallow, Deputy Litigation Director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, explores the legal complexities of defamation cases involving public figures and the implications for media accountability in a polarised landscape. The Map Men, winners of TikTok's UK and Ireland video of the year, have turned their passion for maps into viral success. Jay Foreman, one half of the duo, discusses their creative process, the balance between humour and education in their work, and how their unique take on cartography resonates with audiences across platforms. Presenters: Katie Razzall and Ros Atkins Producer: Lucy Wai Assistant Producer: Martha Owen
We discuss why CNN is under pressure after a viral news report from Syria turned out not to be all it claimed to be. As ABC News settles a defamation lawsuit with Donald Trump for $15m, we look at what it means for journalism. Also on the programme, a BBC World Service investigation has found that Steven Bartlett's Diary of A CEO is amplifying harmful health misinformation with little or no challenge. We hear why health and wellness content has proven so popular on podcasts and social media. One half of the Youtube comedy group Map Men reveal how they turned their passion for cartography into a global phenomenon. Plus the editor-in-chief of Time Magazine tells us why they have selected President Elect Trump as their Person of the Year. Guests: David Folkenflik, Media Correspondent, NPR; Katie Fallow, Deputy Litigation Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Cécile Simmons, Investigative Researcher, Institute for Strategic Dialogue; Dr Megan Rossi, Dietician, known as The Gut Health Doctor; Nick Hilton, Co-founder, Podot; Jay Foreman, Comedian and YouTube creator; Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-chief, Time magazinePresenters: Katie Razzall and Ros Atkins Producer: Lucy Wai Assistant Producer: Martha Owen
Do the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment apply to online discourse? What if that online discourse spreads misinformation? Marketplace's Kimberly Adams speaks with Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about how we should understand the right to free speech in the internet era.
Do the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment apply to online discourse? What if that online discourse spreads misinformation? Marketplace's Kimberly Adams speaks with Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about how we should understand the right to free speech in the internet era.
Do the free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment apply to online discourse? What if that online discourse spreads misinformation? Marketplace's Kimberly Adams speaks with Nadine Farid Johnson, policy director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about how we should understand the right to free speech in the internet era.
Jane Bambauer, Professor at Levin College of Law; Ramya Krishnan, Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School; Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School and a Senior Editor at Lawfare, join Kevin Frazier, Assistant Professor at St. Thomas University College of Law and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to break down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' hearing in TikTok v. Garland, in which a panel of judges assessed the constitutionality of the TikTok bill.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On June 26, the US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Murthy v Missouri, a cased that considered whether the Biden administration violated the First Amendment in its efforts to address COVID-19 mis- and disinformation on social media. Tech Policy press fellow Dean Jackson, who studied the case closely, discussed the outcome and what it means for the future with three experts:Olga Belogolova, director of the Emerging Technologies Initiative at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS);Mayze Teitler, a legal fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute; andNina Jankowicz, co-Founder and CEO of the American Sunlight Project.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden administration in Missouri v. Biden, a case about government influence on social media content moderation. Guest host Rebecca Kern called Alex Abdo at the Knight First Amendment Institute to discuss the court's 6-3 decision and its potential implications for online speech as we approach the 2024 election.
In the week that Julian Assange walks free, we explore the story of WikiLeaks' unprecedented data releases and how he and his organisation changed the way journalists and newsrooms operate. We also assess if his guilty plea to a US espionage charge will have a chilling effect on national security journalism. Also in the programme, Steven Moffat, the writer behind global TV hits such as Sherlock and Doctor Who. He reveals why he wanted to tackle cancel culture in his new comedy-drama “Douglas is Cancelled”. Presenter: Katie Razzall Guests: James Ball, Political Editor, The New European; Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Steven Moffat, writer and Executive Producer, Douglas is Cancelled.
On the day Julian Assange is freed, we explore the story of WikiLeaks' unprecedented data releases, how he and the organisation changed the way journalists and newsrooms operate and how these releases ultimately led to his incarceration. Also in the programme, ITV's Julie Etchingham explains the secrets behind chairing prime ministerial debates and Steven Moffat, writer of new comedy drama Douglas is Cancelled, on why he's making journalism his subject. Guests: Leila Nathoo, Political Correspondent, BBC; Dominic Wring, Professor of Political Communication, Loughborough University; Jonathan Munro, Deputy Director, BBC News; Julie Etchingham, journalist and moderator, ITV news; James Ball, Political Editor, The New European; Carrie DeCell, senior staff attorney, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Katie Mark, Deputy Editor, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism; Steven Moffat, writer, Douglas is Cancelled.Presenters: Katie Razzall & Ros Atkins Producer: Simon Richardson
Last week, a federal judge granted a motion to dismiss and strike a lawsuit brought by X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, against a nonprofit research outfit called The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). To learn more about why the ruling matters, Justin Hendrix spoke to Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; Imran Ahmed, the CEO and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate; and Roberta Kaplan, a partner at the law firm of Kaplan, Hecker, and Fink, which represented CCDH in this matter.
Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.Last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would require ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns the popular social media app TikTok, to divest its ownership in the platform or face TikTok being banned in the United States. Although prospects for the bill in the Senate remain uncertain, President Biden has said he will sign the bill if it comes to his desk, and this is the most serious attempt yet to ban the controversial social media app.Today's podcast is the latest in a series of conversations we've had about TikTok. Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led a conversation with Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Ramya Krishnan, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. They talked about the First Amendment implications of a TikTok ban, whether it's a good idea as a policy matter, and how we should think about foreign ownership of platforms more generally.Disclaimer: Matt's center receives funding from foundations and tech companies, including funding from TikTok.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo—two cases in which government officials allegedly pressured private companies to target disfavored viewpoints. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation join Jeffrey Rosen to break down both cases. Together they discuss the state action doctrine, explore the line between coercion and persuasion, and interrogate the tension between government speech and private speech. Resources: Murthy v. Missouri (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NRA v. Vullo (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963) Alex Abdo, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene, Brief in Support of Neither Party, Murthy v. Missouri David Greene and Karen Gullo, “Lawmakers: Ban TikTok to Stop Election Misinformation! Same Lawmakers: Restrict How Government Addresses Election Misinformation!,” EFF (March 15, 2024) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill that would require ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns the popular social media app TikTok, to divest its ownership in the platform or face TikTok being banned in the United States. Although prospects for the bill in the Senate remain uncertain, President Biden has said he will sign the bill if it comes to his desk, and this is the most serious attempt yet to ban the controversial social media app.Today's podcast is the latest in a series of conversations we've had about TikTok. Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led a conversation with Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Ramya Krishnan, a Senior Staff Attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. They talked about the First Amendment implications of a TikTok ban, whether it's a good idea as a policy matter, and how we should think about foreign ownership of platforms more generally.Disclaimer: Matt's center receives funding from foundations and tech companies, including funding from TikTok. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, concerning the potential First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms—what's sometimes known as jawboning. The case arrived at the Supreme Court with a somewhat shaky evidentiary record, but the legal questions raised by government requests or demands to remove online content are real. To make sense of it all, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, called up Alex Abdo, the Litigation Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. While the law is unsettled, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?If you're interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute's amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight's series on jawboning—including Perault's reflections—here.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Today, we're bringing you an episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, concerning the potential First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms—what's sometimes known as jawboning. The case arrived at the Supreme Court with a somewhat shaky evidentiary record, but the legal questions raised by government requests or demands to remove online content are real. To make sense of it all, Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, called up Alex Abdo, the Litigation Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. While the law is unsettled, the Supreme Court seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' claims of government censorship. But what is the best way to determine what contacts and government requests are and aren't permissible?If you're interested in more, you can read the Knight Institute's amicus brief in Murthy here and Knight's series on jawboning—including Perault's reflections—here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
On March 18, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murthy v Missouri, a case that asks the justices to consider whether the government coerced or “significantly encouraged” social media executives to remove disfavored speech in violation of the First Amendment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Tech Policy Press reporting fellow Dean Jackson speaks to experts including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University's Mayze Teitler and Jennifer Jones, and the Tech Justice Law Project's Meetali Jain.
On Wednesday, members of the House of Representatives proved they can agree on something. In a bipartisan vote, lawmakers passed a bill that would force TikTok to split from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, or face a nationwide ban — the first for a social media app in the U.S. President Biden has signaled he'd sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate. Advocates argue that the Chinese government could use the hugely popular app to collect Americans’ personal data and threaten U.S. security. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about the congressional action. He pointed out that a little something called the First Amendment could complicate the crackdown.
On Wednesday, members of the House of Representatives proved they can agree on something. In a bipartisan vote, lawmakers passed a bill that would force TikTok to split from its Chinese owner, ByteDance, or face a nationwide ban — the first for a social media app in the U.S. President Biden has signaled he'd sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate. Advocates argue that the Chinese government could use the hugely popular app to collect Americans’ personal data and threaten U.S. security. Marketplace's Lily Jamali spoke to Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about the congressional action. He pointed out that a little something called the First Amendment could complicate the crackdown.
On March 6, 2024, Just Security and the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law co-hosted an all-star panel of experts to discuss the issue of government “jawboning” – a practice of informal government efforts to persuade, or strong-arm, private platforms to change their content-moderation practices. Many aspects of jawboning remain unsettled but could come to a head later this month when the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case called Murthy v. Missouri on March 18. Murthy poses several questions that defy easy answer, driving at the heart of how we wish to construct and regulate what some consider to be the modern public square.The expert panel consists of Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and an Executive Editor at Just Security; Kathryn Ruemmler, the Chief Legal Officer and General Counsel of Goldman Sachs and former White House Counsel to President Barack Obama; and Colin Stretch, the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of Etsy and the former General Counsel of Facebook (now Meta). Just Security's Co-Editor-in-Chief, Ryan Goodman, moderated the discussion. This NYU Law Forum was sponsored by the law firm Latham & Watkins. Show Notes: Jameel Jaffer (@JameelJaffer) Kathryn RuemmlerColin StretchRyan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of LawJust Security's First Amendment coverageJust Security's Content Moderation coverageMusic: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)
This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, which involved challenges to attempts by Texas and Florida to prevent social media sites from banning viewpoint discrimination. The challenges were brought by NetChoice, which argues that the laws' content-moderation restrictions and must-carry provisions violate the First Amendment. The case could determine the future of our most important platforms, from Facebook to X to YouTube. Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute and Larry Lessig of Harvard Law School recap the key issues in both cases; discuss the ideas raised in oral arguments; and preview the wide-ranging impacts these cases may bring. Resources: Moody v. NetChoice (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) NetChoice v. Paxton (oral argument via C-SPAN; transcript) Larry Lessig, Amicus Brief in Support of Respondents Alex Abdo, Amicus Brief in Support of Neither Party Lochner v. New York (1905) PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) Zauderer v. Office of Disc. Counsel (1985) Rumsfeld v. FAIR (2006) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook, X, and TikTok using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, joins Lisa Dent to talk about cases being heard before the United States Supreme Court, where Texas and Florida passed laws that block social media companies from banning users based on their political views even if users violate the platform’s policies. Follow […]
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in fights over laws in Florida and Texas that seek to stop social media platforms from censoring conservative speech online. At issue are provisions that require platforms to keep up certain kinds of content and inform users when posts are removed. The justices are being asked to decide if those requirements are constitutional under the First Amendment's right to editorial judgment. Scott Wilkens, senior counsel at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, joins Cases and Controversies to discuss how the justices are likely to approach a case that could impact public discourse online for decades to come. Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
A two-day hearing in a London court room began Tuesday over the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At stake is whether he'll be extradited to the U.S. on espionage charges. Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, join William Brangham to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
A two-day hearing in a London court room began Tuesday over the fate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. At stake is whether he'll be extradited to the U.S. on espionage charges. Carrie DeCell, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, a former senior counsel for the House Intelligence Committee, join William Brangham to discuss. PBS NewsHour is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders
In front of a live audience at the Knight Foundation's INFORMED conference in Miami, Florida, Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke with Hon. Kenneth L. Wainstein, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security; Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University; and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic about government surveillance of open source social media.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Several recent cases before the Supreme Court have raised important questions at the intersection of technology and law. In this episode, Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, join Jeffrey Rosen for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including Netchoice v Paxton, Murthy v. Missouri, Lindke v. Freed, and O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. This program was streamed live on January 16, 2024. Resources: Knight Institute amicus brief (in support of neither party) Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms' Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023) Knight Institute amicus brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party) Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government's Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024) David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there's no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023) David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier) Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org. Continue today's conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.
Several cases before the Supreme Court raise important questions at the intersection of technology and law. Join legal experts Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute, Clay Calvert of the American Enterprise Institute, and David Greene of the Electronic Frontier Foundation for a conversation exploring key tech cases, including whether Florida and Texas can regulate the platforms' content moderation policies. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Additional Resources Knight Institute's Amicus Brief (in support of neither party), Moody v. NetChoice & NetChoice v. Paxton Clay Calvert, “Friends of the Court, Friends of the First Amendment: Exploring Amicus Brief Support for Platforms' Editorial Independence,” AEI (Dec. 22, 2023) Knight Institute Amicus Brief in Murthy v. Missouri (in support of neither party) Clay Calvert, “Persuasion or Coercion? Understanding the Government's Position in Murthy v. Missouri, Part I,” AEI (Jan. 8, 2024) David Greene, “In Jawboning Cases, there's no getting away from textual analysis,” Knight First Amendment Institute (Nov. 7, 2023) David Greene, EFF Amicus Brief in O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed (in support of Lindke and Garnier) Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo (1974) Stay Connected and Learn More Continue the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to Live at the National Constitution Center and our companion podcast We the People on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app.
In May 2023, Montana passed a new law that would ban the use of TikTok within the state starting on January 1, 2024. But as of today, TikTok is still legal in the state of Montana—thanks to a preliminary injunction issued by a federal district judge, who found that the Montana law likely violated the First Amendment. In Texas, meanwhile, another federal judge recently upheld a more limited ban against the use of TikTok on state-owned devices. What should we make of these rulings, and how should we understand the legal status of efforts to ban TikTok?We've discussed the question of TikTok bans and the First Amendment before on the Lawfare Podcast, when Lawfare Senior Editor Alan Rozenshtein and Matt Perault, Director of the Center on Technology Policy at UNC-Chapel Hill, sat down with Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Mary-Rose Papandrea, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law. In light of the Montana and Texas rulings, Matt and Lawfare Senior Editor Quinta Jurecic decided to bring the gang back together and talk about where the TikTok bans stand with Ramya and Mary-Rose, on this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Speech has probably never been freer in the world than it is today: Multiple venues – especially social media – allow people's perspectives to take flight fluently, globally, and frequently. The culture of free speech is also under steady and ever more sophisticated assaults, perhaps because its ubiquity is threatening to any person or institution that holds an opposing viewpoint. The very thing that makes speech so free right now – ease of motion – is, perhaps, what also makes it more threatening. Jameel Jaffer is an attorney and the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Carolyn Cole, a Pulitzer-Prize winning staff photographer for the Los Angeles Times, has covered wars and other conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kosovo, Liberia, Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti, and the U.S.-Mexico border. Over the course of her 30 year career, she has been seriously injured on the job precisely once—when members of the Minnesota State Patrol pushed Cole over a retaining wall and pepper sprayed her so badly that her eyes were swollen shut. Cole was in Minneapolis in the summer of 2020 to cover the protests after the murder of George Floyd. She was wearing a flak jacket marked TV, a helmet, and carried press credentials at the time of her attack. Cole's story is not unique among the press corps. According to a new report out this week from the Knight First Amendment Institute called “Covering Democracy: Protests, the Police, and the Press,” in 2020, at least 129 journalists were arrested while covering social justice protests and more than 400 suffered physical attacks, 80 percent of them at the hands of law enforcement. As Joel Simon, author of the report and former Executive Director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, writes, “The presence of the media is essential to dissent; it is the oxygen that gives protests life. Media coverage is one of the primary mechanisms by which protesters' grievances and demands reach the broader public.”Lawfare Managing Editor Tyler McBrien sat down with Joel, as well as Katy Glenn Bass, the Research Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, to discuss the report, the long legacy of law enforcement attacks on journalists covering protests in America, who counts as “the press” in the eyes of the court, and what can be done to better ensure press freedom. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
DeRay, Kaya, and Myles cover the underreported news of the week — Toni Morrison's personal materials on exhibit at Princeton University, top A.I. experts warn of the technology's dangerous consequences, and flawed understanding of the Bystander Effect. DeRay interviews attorney Stephanie Krent of Knight First Amendment Institute about a lawsuit challenging prison's digitization and destruction of mail.NewsDeRay The Bystander Effect or the Genovese SyndromeKaya ‘The Godfather of A.I.' Leaves Google and Warns of Danger AheadMyles The Exhibit That Reveals Toni Morrison's Obsessions
Over the past few years, TikTok has become a uniquely polarizing social media platform. On the one hand, millions of users, especially those in their teens and twenties, love the app. On the other hand, the government is concerned that TikTok's vulnerability to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party makes it a serious national security threat. There's even talk of banning the app altogether. But would that be legal? In particular, does the First Amendment allow the government to ban an application that's used by millions to communicate every day?On this episode of Arbiters of Truth, our series on the information ecosystem, Matt Perault, director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Lawfare Senior Editor and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, spoke with Ramya Krishnan, a staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and Mary-Rose Papendrea, the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law, to think through the legal and policy implications of a TikTok ban.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Does the First Amendment protect the rights of social media companies to remove posts based on a user's point of view? The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals just said no. Preet speaks with Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about the ruling, which has been called “legally bonkers.” Stay Tuned in Brief is a new offering from CAFE and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Please let us know what you think! Email us at letters@cafe.com, or leave a voicemail at 669-247-7338. References and Supplemental Materials: Texas's House Bill 20 Florida's Senate Bill 7072 11th CIrcuit's decision invalidating SB7072, 5/23/22 5th Circuit decision upholding HB20, 9/16/22 District Court decision enjoining enforcement of HB20, 6/30/21 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
