Podcast appearances and mentions of Mary Anne Franks

The TAKE IT DOWN Act is the first major U.S. federal law to squarely target non‑consensual intimate imagery (NCII) and to include a component requiring tech companies to act. Long handled via a patchwork of state laws, it criminalizes NCII at the federal level—both authentic images and AI-generated digital forgeries—and requires that platforms remove reported NCII within 48 hours of notification by a victim or victim's representative. TAKE IT DOWN passed with wide bipartisan support—unanimously in the Senate, and 409-2 in the House. Melania Trump championed it, and it is expected that President Trump will sign it. And yet, some of the cyber civil rights organizations that have led the fight to mitigate the harms of NCII over many years have serious reservations about the bill as passed. Why?Lawfare Contributing Editor Renée DiResta sits down with Mary Anne Franks, President and Legislative & Technology Policy Director at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law at the George Washington Law School; Becca Branum, Deputy Director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology; and Adam Conner, Vice President, Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress to unpack what the bill does, why it suddenly cruised through on a rare bipartisan wave of support, and whether its sweeping takedown mandate will protect victims or chill lawful speech. This is a nuanced discussion; some of the guests support specific aspects of the bill, while disagreeing about the implementation of others. Expect clear explanations, constructive disagreement, and practical takeaways for understanding this important piece of legislation.More resources:TAKE IT DOWN Act Legislative Summary and TextBecca Branum and Tom Bowman's letter urging changes to TAKE IT DOWN prior to passageCyber Civil Rights InitiativeSenate press release upon House signing, including list of 120 supporting organizationsTo 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.

Ali Velshi is joined by Yale Jackson School of Global Affairs' Asha Rangappa, MSNBC's ‘The Weekend' host Michael Steele, Fmr. Chair of the FTC Lina Khan, President of Wesleyan University Michael Roth, George Washington University Law School's Mary Anne Franks, MSNBC Legal Analyst Barbara McQuade, Co-Founder and Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Contrarian' Jennifer Rubin, Filmmaker Alex Gibney, “The Gatsby Gambit” author Claire Anderson Wheeler, and Playwright of ‘Gatsby: An American Myth' Martyna Majok. 

In this compelling commentary, Robert Ian of conquerchange.com dives into the issue of media gaslighting and the distortion of facts surrounding free speech and censorship. He highlights constitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley's recent blog post addressing a false claim repeated by NPR and others: that the Supreme Court rejected allegations of government coordination with social media companies to censor content. Ian clarifies that the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri was solely about the lack of standing for Missouri and Louisiana, not a judgment on the merits of the censorship claims. Ian emphasizes Turley's point that no Supreme Court decision was made regarding whether government pressure on social media platforms violated the First Amendment. He critiques the mainstream media and figures like law professor Mary Anne Franks for perpetuating this falsehood, labeling it a deliberate misrepresentation. Ian underscores Turley's long-standing defense of the Constitution and free speech, noting the growing scarcity of credible voices like his in today's media landscape.  The commentary also connects this issue to broader concerns, such as the weaponization of free speech against ordinary citizens and the dismissal of evidence like the Twitter and Facebook Files as “conspiracy theories.” Ian warns that censorship is a direct threat to freedom and calls for vigilance against these troubling trends.  Find Robert here: https://ConquerChange.com Find Kerry here: http://financialsurvivalnetwork.com/ and here https://inflationcafe.com

New York Times investigative journalist David Enrich argues that the rich & powerful are using free speech laws to suppress dissent. He's interviewed by author and George Washington Law School professor Mary Anne Franks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New York Times investigative journalist David Enrich argues that the rich & powerful are using free speech laws to suppress dissent. He's interviewed by author and George Washington Law School professor Mary Anne Franks. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

George Washington University Law School professor Mary Anne Franks discusses her new book, “Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment.” Professor Danielle Citron and attorney Elisa D'Amico provide commentary. The event was sponsored by the LawTech Center. (University of Virginia School of Law, Nov. 14, 2024)

Trump's announcement of Matt Gaetz as his pick to head the Justice Department was met with gasps around the Capitol. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's senior legal writer Mark Stern to, yes, gasp together, but also to dig into what this stunt Attorney General appointment means for the law and the rule of law.  Next, Dahlia talks to Dr. Mary Anne Franks, author of Fearless Speech about the new era of censorship we are entering under the unprecedented power of Elon Musk and the oligarchs screaming “free speech” as they sue in their forum-shopped court of choice.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump's announcement of Matt Gaetz as his pick to head the Justice Department was met with gasps around the Capitol. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's senior legal writer Mark Stern to, yes, gasp together, but also to dig into what this stunt Attorney General appointment means for the law and the rule of law.  Next, Dahlia talks to Dr. Mary Anne Franks, author of Fearless Speech about the new era of censorship we are entering under the unprecedented power of Elon Musk and the oligarchs screaming “free speech” as they sue in their forum-shopped court of choice.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Trump's announcement of Matt Gaetz as his pick to head the Justice Department was met with gasps around the Capitol. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's senior legal writer Mark Stern to, yes, gasp together, but also to dig into what this stunt Attorney General appointment means for the law and the rule of law.  Next, Dahlia talks to Dr. Mary Anne Franks, author of Fearless Speech about the new era of censorship we are entering under the unprecedented power of Elon Musk and the oligarchs screaming “free speech” as they sue in their forum-shopped court of choice.  Want more Amicus? Join Slate Plus to unlock weekly bonus episodes with exclusive legal analysis. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. You can subscribe directly from the Amicus show page on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kathryn Rubino chats with Mary Anne Franks, a leading voice in Intellectual Property and Civil Rights Law. Uncover the essence of fearless speech and why it's crucial in today's world. Explore bold concepts from her new book that challenge conventional First Amendment beliefs. A must-listen for anyone intrigued by legal boundaries and free speech dynamics!   Highlights Life and career updates since 2020. Transition from Miami to George Washington University. Balancing academia and publication. Clear communication as education and writing goal. Importance of free speech. Why focus on the First Amendment in the second book. The constant evolution of First Amendment discussions. Public and legal misconceptions about censorship. Members of Congress misunderstanding censorship. New framework for evaluating and understanding free speech. Definition and importance of “Fearless Speech.” Story of Dorothy Thompson as an example of fearless speech. Difference between protecting and promoting speech. University campuses and the issue of controversial speakers.   Episode Sponsored By  https://www.lexisnexis.com/lexisplus    Links and Resources https://www.amazon.com/Fearless-Speech-Breaking-First-Amendment/dp/1645030539/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.law.gwu.edu/mary-anne-franks https://cybercivilrights.org/   Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

This month, the National Constitution Center convened the 2024 National First Amendment Summit, in partnership with FIRE and NYU's First Amendment Watch. America's leading legal thinkers joined for a vigorous discussion on the state of free speech in America and around the globe. “Free Speech on Campus Today” features Mary Anne Franks, author of the new book Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment;  FIRE's Vice President of Campus Advocacy Alex Morey; and Keith Whittington, author of You Can't Teach That!: The Battle over University Classrooms. “Free Speech In and Out of the Courts” features Nadine Strossen, author of Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know; Jonathan Turley, author of the new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage; and Kenji Yoshino of NYU School of Law and Meta's Oversight Board.   Resources: 2024 National First Amendment Summit  FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression  NYU's First Amendment Watch  Mary Ann Franks, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment (2024)  Keith Whittington, You Can't Teach That!: The Battle over University Classrooms (2024)  Nadine Strossen, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (2023)  Jonathan Turley, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (2024)  Meta Oversight Board      Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@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

This week, the National Constitution Center convened the 2024 National First Amendment Summit, in partnership with FIRE and NYU's First Amendment Watch. America's leading legal thinkers joined for a vigorous discussion on the state of free speech in America and around the globe. “Free Speech on Campus Today” features Mary Anne Franks, author of the new book Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment;  FIRE's Vice President of Campus Advocacy Alex Morey; and Keith Whittington, author of You Can't Teach That!: The Battle over University Classrooms. “Free Speech In and Out of the Courts” features Nadine Strossen, author of Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know; Jonathan Turley, author of the new book The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage; and Kenji Yoshino of NYU School of Law and Meta's Oversight Board.   Resources: 2024 National First Amendment Summit  FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression  NYU's First Amendment Watch  Mary Ann Franks, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment (2024)  Keith Whittington, You Can't Teach That!: The Battle over University Classrooms (2024)  Nadine Strossen, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (2023)  Jonathan Turley, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (2024)  Meta Oversight Board  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@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

In her new book, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, Dr. Mary Anne Franks challenges First Amendment orthodoxy and critiques “reckless speech,” which endangers vulnerable groups and protects corporate interests, in order to advance “fearless speech,” which seeks to advance equality and democracy.

Hosts Kelly Roskam, Tim Carey, and Kari Still react to and analyze the Supreme Court's ruling in U.S. v Rahimi. The Court upheld firearm prohibitions for those subject to domestic violence protective orders.  This is the first time the Court has used its recent Bruen test in an opinion, but there are still many lingering questions about how lower courts should use the test when making decisions.    ###  0:00 - Introduction   1:45 - U.S. v Rahimi decision recap 4:35 - Dr. Mary Anne Franks, legal scholar and professor of law at George Washington University Law School joins the show to analyze the Court's decision, discuss what it means for the Bruen test and other Second Amendment decisions.  32:30 - The Bruen test and historical analogies for disarming dangerous individuals 38:05 - Natalie Nanasi, associate professor at SMU, Dedman School of Law and founding director of the Hunter Legal Center for Victims of Crimes Against Women discusses the impact of the Court's decision on domestic violence victims and survivors.  50:45 – Implications of the Court's decision on other gun violence prevention laws and challenges  

What just happened??? Despite going into June clear-eyed and well informed about the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority, the number of huge cases before it, and the alarming stakes in so many of those cases…we are, nonetheless, shocked. The October 2023 term came to a shuddering end on Monday July 1st and Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Steve Vladeck and Mary Anne Franks are here to help parse some monumental decisions, some smaller cases with big ramifications, and what we can understand about the Justices who made those decisions for the rest of us, and the Justices who dissented.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What just happened??? Despite going into June clear-eyed and well informed about the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority, the number of huge cases before it, and the alarming stakes in so many of those cases…we are, nonetheless, shocked. The October 2023 term came to a shuddering end on Monday July 1st and Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Steve Vladeck and Mary Anne Franks are here to help parse some monumental decisions, some smaller cases with big ramifications, and what we can understand about the Justices who made those decisions for the rest of us, and the Justices who dissented.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What just happened??? Despite going into June clear-eyed and well informed about the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority, the number of huge cases before it, and the alarming stakes in so many of those cases…we are, nonetheless, shocked. The October 2023 term came to a shuddering end on Monday July 1st and Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, Steve Vladeck and Mary Anne Franks are here to help parse some monumental decisions, some smaller cases with big ramifications, and what we can understand about the Justices who made those decisions for the rest of us, and the Justices who dissented.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It is said that censorship is the strongest drive in human nature — with sex being a weak second. But what happens when these two primordial drives clash? Does censorship or sex win out? Nadine Strossen is a professor emerita at New York Law School, a former president of the ACLU, and a senior fellow at FIRE. She is also the author of “Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights.” First released in 1995, the book was reissued this year with a new preface. Mary Anne Franks is a law professor at George Washington University and the president and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She is the author of “The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech” and the forthcoming “Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment.” Timestamps 0:00 Intro 2:17 Defining pornography 7:20 Is porn protected by the First Amendment? 11:10 Revenge porn 22:05 Origins of “Defending Pornography” 25:06 Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon 29:20 Can porn be consensual? 35:02 Dworkin/MacKinnon model legislation 52:20 Porn in Canada 56:07 Is it possible to ban porn? 1:03:26 College professor's porn hobby 1:12:39 Outro

Tech policy experts Mark Coeckelbergh, author of the new book Why AI Undermines Democracy and What To Do About It, Mary Anne Franks of George Washington University Law School, and Marc Rotenberg of the Center for AI and Digital Policy explored the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and constitutional principles and suggest strategies to protect democratic values in the digital age. This conversation was moderated by Thomas Donnelly, chief content officer at the National Constitution Center. This program was made possible through the generous support of Citizen Travelers, the nonpartisan civic engagement initiative of Travelers. Resources: Mark Coeckelbergh, Why AI Undermines Democracy and What To Do About It (2024) Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP), “Universal Guidelines for AI” CAIDP, “Artificial Intelligence and Democratic Values” Mary Anne Franks, Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, (forthcoming Oct. 2024) “Tougher AI Policies Could Protect Taylor Swift—And Everyone Else—From Deepfakes,” Scientific American (Feb. 8, 2024) Marc Rotenberg, “Human Rights Alignment: The Challenge Ahead for AI Lawmakers,” (Dec. 2023) EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), https://gdpr-info.eu/ “U.S. Senate Will Debate Three Bipartisan Bills Addressing the Use of AI in Elections,” Democracy Docket (May 14, 2024) OECD Principles on AI Marc Rotenberg, “The Imperative for a UN Special Rapporteur on AI and Human Rights,” Vol. 1 (2024) Mark Coeckelbergh, “The case for global governance of AI: arguments, counter-arguments, and challenges ahead,” (May 2024) Bipartisan Senate AI Working Group Report Council of Europe and AI Council of Europe AI Treaty Stay Connected and Learn More: Questions or comments about the show? Email us at programs@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

Ali Velshi is joined by AZ Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, Prof. Mary Anne Franks, PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel, KPMG chief economist Diane Swonk, author Ghassan Zeineddine, author James Frankie Thomas, MSNBC Legal Analysts Jill Wine-Banks and Charles Coleman Jr.

Sure, the computer gave us war. But sex gave us the iCloud email alert. Ever since Marilyn Monroe was on the cover of Playboy, men have been profiting off of women's bodies without their consent. Yet if revenge porn has been around since God was a small child, why did it seem to peak in the 2010s? In this episode, Hannah and Maia go back to a time when Hunter Moore, the Gavin McInnes of cybersex terrorism, reigned supreme on the internet with his wildly popular revenge porn website, Is Anyone Up? A website which changed our understanding of revenge porn forever. Join along on this odyssey of legal loopholes, internet vigilantes, and a man named Gary Jones asking for your nudes - to uncover the rise and fall of “the most hated man on the internet”. Tangent includes: Kyle MacLachlan's feet.  SOURCES: Russell Brandom, Apple just added another layer of iCloud security, a day before iPhone 6 event” The Verge (2014). Danielle Keats Citron and Mary Anne Franks, “Criminalizing Revenge Porn” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol. 24 (2014). Samantha Cole, How Sex Changed the Internet and the Internet Changed Sex, Workman Publishing Group (2022). Camille Dodero, ““Gary Jones” Wants Your Nudes” The Village Voice (2012). Erin Durkin, “Hacker sentenced to prison for role in Jennifer Lawrence nude photo theft” The Guardian (2018). Kashmir Hill, “Revenge porn (Or: Another reason not to take nude photos)” Forbes (2009). Kimberly Lawson, One in 25 Americans Say They've Been a Victim of Revenge Porn” Vice (2016). Amanda Marcotte, “‘The Fappening' and Revenge Porn Culture: Jennifer Lawrence and the Creepshot Epidemic” The Daily best (2014). “Love, Relationships, and #SextRegret: It's Time to Take Back the Web” McAfee (2013). Sam Kashner, “Both Huntress and Prey” Vanity Fair (2014). Roni Rosenberg and Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg, “Revenge Porn in the Shadow of the First Amendment” (2022).

Over the past year, a tsunami of apps that digitally strip the clothes off real people has hit the market. Now anyone can create fake non-consensual sexual images in just a few clicks. With cases proliferating in high schools, guest presenter Laurie Segall talks to legal scholar Mary Anne Franks about the AI-enabled rise in deep fake porn and what we can do about it. Correction: Laurie refers to the app 'Clothes Off.' It's actually named Clothoff. There are many clothes remover apps in this category.RECOMMENDED MEDIA Revenge Porn: The Cyberwar Against WomenIn a five-part digital series, Laurie Segall uncovers a disturbing internet trend: the rise of revenge pornThe Cult of the ConstitutionIn this provocative book, Mary Anne Franks examines the thin line between constitutional fidelity and constitutional fundamentalismFake Explicit Taylor Swift Images Swamp Social MediaCalls to protect women and crack down on the platforms and technology that spread such images have been reignitedRECOMMENDED YUA EPISODES No One is Immune to AI HarmsEsther Perel on Artificial IntimacySocial Media Victims Lawyer UpThe AI DilemmaYour Undivided Attention is produced by the Center for Humane Technology. Follow us on Twitter: @HumaneTech_

Irina and Michelle sit down with sexual abuse and online harassment expert Prof. Mary Anne Franks from the George Washington University Law School to take stock of the state of Internet safety (or lack thereof) today. Mary Anne explains why "revenge porn" is generally a misnomer, why women are particularly at risk in a variety of online settings, and what has made it so difficult to pass federal legislation to protect individuals from having naked images of themselves distributed nonconsensually. The law professor and Krav Maga instructor also discusses what readers will find in her forthcoming second book "Fearless Speech," why only criminalization is likely to incentivize potential online abusers to stay put, and what encourages her to continue advocating for women's rights in the face of death threats. Join us for a conversation about both individual safety measures and the broader structural changes needed to prevent further victimization! Prof. Mary Anne Franks' faculty profileMary Anne's TwitterCyber Civil Rights Initiative websiteMary Anne's first book, "The Cult of the Constitution" Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tomorrow's virtual worlds will be governed, at least at first, by today's legal and regulatory regimes. How will privacy law, torts, IP, or even criminal law apply in 'extended reality' (XR)?Drawing from the discussion at a conference hosted earlier this year at Stanford University called "Existing Law and Extended Reality," this episode asks what challenges will emerge from human behavior and interaction-- with one another and with technology-- inside XR experiences, and what choices governments and tech companies will face in addressing those challenges.This episode of The Sunday Show was produced by Tech Policy Press audio and reporting intern Rebecca Rand, and features the voices of experts such as Brittan Heller (the organizer of the Stanford conference), Mary Anne Franks, Kent Bye, Jameson Spivack, Joseph Palmer, Eugene Volokh, Amie Stepanovich, Susan Aaronson, Florence G'Sell, and Avi Bar Zeev.

Join Dr. Mary Anne Franks as she unpacks the complexities of civil rights, technology, and online harm, shedding light on the urgent need for change in the digital landscape. Gain valuable insights into the legal and ethical dimensions of these issues and explore potential solutions for a safer and more responsible online world.  Dr. Mary Anne Franks is a renowned legal scholar, expert, author, activist, media commentator, and law professor. She recently joined the George Washington University School of Law as the Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law. Prior to that, she taught at the University of Miami School of Law as the Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair.  Dr. Franks teaches classes that delve into cutting-edge and feminist legal theories about First Amendment law, Second Amendment law, criminal law, criminal procedure, family law, and law, and technology. And her scholarly work focuses on online harassment, free speech, discrimination, and violence. She also serves as President and Legislative and Technology Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI - www.cybercivilrights.org),  a non-profit organization that works to combat online abuses that threaten civil rights and civil liberties. Its vision is a world in which law, policy, and technology align to ensure the protection of civil rights and civil liberties for all. CCRI turns 10 years old in August 2023.  Dr. Franks' work in advocating for legislative, technological, and social reform on the issue of nonconsensual pornography ("revenge porn") has been instrumental in drafting state legislation against the practice in the U.S. She has worked tirelessly on a federal criminal bill, first the Intimate Privacy Protection Act (IPPA), which evolved into the ENOUGH Act, and again into the SHIELD Act, which is still in the works.  In May 2019, Dr. Franks published The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech (https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Constitution-Mary-Anne-Franks/dp/1503603229), which won a gold medal at the 2020 Independent Publisher Book Awards as well as the 2020 Association of American Publishers PROSE Award for Legal Studies and Excellence in Social Sciences. She is presently working on her second book, Fearless Speech.  In this interview, Dr. Franks reflects on the progress made over the past decade in raising awareness about the non-consensual disclosure of intimate images, social media harms, and how to combat both the misconceptions and the grave consequences faced by those at the mercy of big tech and lobbyists (often the same). She opines on the various legal terminology as it's developed, as well as the legal framework that has emerged in both tort law (products liability) and privacy law.   The conversation also delves into the broader spectrum of online abuses, including social media addiction, mob mentality, stalking, sexual extortion (or “sextortion”), and defamation, to name a few. Dr. Franks explains how social media platforms amplify the scale and reach of bad online actors engaged in internet-based abuses, as well as the critical role of social media platforms in combating social media harms.  At the center of much of the social media liability debate is Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. The law includes two main provisions. The first provision, known as the "Good Samaritan" provision, grants immunity to platforms that take action in good faith to moderate or remove content that they consider objectionable or harmful. This provision encourages platforms to engage in content moderation without fear of legal repercussions.  The second provision protects platforms from being treated as the publisher or speaker of the user-generated content. This means that even if a platform chooses not to moderate or remove certain content, it cannot be held liable for that content as if it had created or endorsed it.  CDA 230 has been a subject of debate and controversy in recent years, as some argue that it allows platforms to evade responsibility for harmful content, while others maintain that it is crucial for enabling free expression and innovation on the internet. The law has faced calls for reform and revision to address issues such as online harassment, misinformation, and the spread of illegal content. According to Dr. Franks, at the core of this debate is the need to question whether the level of immunity Section 230 provides to internet intermediaries is justified.  While she acknowledges the challenges faced by social media platforms in moderating an enormous volume of user-generated content, Dr. Franks suggests that platforms should in fact be held responsible based on their knowledge, intent, and contribution to harmful actions. There are, however, concerns about the lack of proactive measures implemented by social media platforms, as well as the lack of incentives for platforms to prioritize user safety. Dr. Franks underlines the necessity of holding platforms accountable and creating safer online environments, particularly for minors. She emphasizes the need to reevaluate current legislation and industry practices to align them with the collective responsibility of reducing harm and promoting user well-being. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Anne_Franks  CCRI: www.cybercivilrights.org  SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1224353  Book: The Cult of the Constitution https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Constitution-Mary-Anne-Franks/dp/1503603229  Twitter: https://twitter.com/ma_franks    Don't forget to like and subscribe to stay updated on the latest developments in this complex legal battle.   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mass-tort-news Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/masstortnewsorg Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/masstortnews.org

Professors Danielle Citron; Hany Farid of the University of California, Berkeley; and Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law discuss the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative's work in the 10 years since its founding. The event was sponsored by the school's LawTech Center, which Citron directs. (University of Virginia School of Law, May 26, 2023)

Professors Danielle Citron of UVA Law and Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law — board members of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative — discuss Citron's book, “The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity and Love in the Digital Age.” (University of Virginia School of Law, May 26, 2023)

As laughter ricocheted around the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, Professor Mary Anne Franks wondered if she could quite believe her ears. The matter of some hilarity, it seems, were messages sent by a convicted stalker to his victim. Individual messages that were among what one detective estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands - possibly as many as one million messages - sent by Billy Raymond Counterman to singer Coles Whalen. Counterman's campaign of harassment drove Whalen away from performing, indeed drove her away from her home state. She moved across the country to get away. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks to discuss Counterman v Colorado and how the details of a cyber-stalking case were lost to free speech concerns about trigger warnings and "sensitivity". You can read Prof. Franks' powerful piece on this here.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the big fat settlement Dominion got in its defamation case against Fox News, and why it feels so unsatisfying, the religious liberty case you probably missed at the court this week, Groff v DeJoy. They also talk about how Sen. Dianne Feinstein's continued absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats' workarounds for it, are like bringing a bubble blower to a knife fight.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As laughter ricocheted around the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, Professor Mary Anne Franks wondered if she could quite believe her ears. The matter of some hilarity, it seems, were messages sent by a convicted stalker to his victim. Individual messages that were among what one detective estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands - possibly as many as one million messages - sent by Billy Raymond Counterman to singer Coles Whalen. Counterman's campaign of harassment drove Whalen away from performing, indeed drove her away from her home state. She moved across the country to get away. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks to discuss Counterman v Colorado and how the details of a cyber-stalking case were lost to free speech concerns about trigger warnings and "sensitivity". You can read Prof. Franks' powerful piece on this here.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the big fat settlement Dominion got in its defamation case against Fox News, and why it feels so unsatisfying, the religious liberty case you probably missed at the court this week, Groff v DeJoy. They also talk about how Sen. Dianne Feinstein's continued absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats' workarounds for it, are like bringing a bubble blower to a knife fight.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As laughter ricocheted around the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, Professor Mary Anne Franks wondered if she could quite believe her ears. The matter of some hilarity, it seems, were messages sent by a convicted stalker to his victim. Individual messages that were among what one detective estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands - possibly as many as one million messages - sent by Billy Raymond Counterman to singer Coles Whalen. Counterman's campaign of harassment drove Whalen away from performing, indeed drove her away from her home state. She moved across the country to get away. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks to discuss Counterman v Colorado and how the details of a cyber-stalking case were lost to free speech concerns about trigger warnings and "sensitivity". You can read Prof. Franks' powerful piece on this here.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the big fat settlement Dominion got in its defamation case against Fox News, and why it feels so unsatisfying, the religious liberty case you probably missed at the court this week, Groff v DeJoy. They also talk about how Sen. Dianne Feinstein's continued absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats' workarounds for it, are like bringing a bubble blower to a knife fight.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As laughter ricocheted around the Supreme Court chamber Wednesday, Professor Mary Anne Franks wondered if she could quite believe her ears. The matter of some hilarity, it seems, were messages sent by a convicted stalker to his victim. Individual messages that were among what one detective estimated to number in the hundreds of thousands - possibly as many as one million messages - sent by Billy Raymond Counterman to singer Coles Whalen. Counterman's campaign of harassment drove Whalen away from performing, indeed drove her away from her home state. She moved across the country to get away. On this week's Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks to discuss Counterman v Colorado and how the details of a cyber-stalking case were lost to free speech concerns about trigger warnings and "sensitivity". You can read Prof. Franks' powerful piece on this here.  In this week's Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate's Mark Joseph Stern to discuss the big fat settlement Dominion got in its defamation case against Fox News, and why it feels so unsatisfying, the religious liberty case you probably missed at the court this week, Groff v DeJoy. They also talk about how Sen. Dianne Feinstein's continued absence from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democrats' workarounds for it, are like bringing a bubble blower to a knife fight.  Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Three decades ago, in the fledgling days of the internet, Congress amended Section V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to grant broader legal protections to websites who host information from third parties. Part of Section 230 of that law (known as the Communications Decency Act) has been referred to as “the 26 words that created the internet,” due to the burgeoning effect it had on online content as internet companies were protected from lawsuits. Two current Supreme Court cases—Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh—ask whether algorithms created by companies like Google or Twitter, which might promote and recommend terroristic or other harmful material, result in the companies being held liable for aiding and abetting the terrorists; or whether, as in the Google case, Section 230 applies to grant immunity to the platforms. In this episode, guests Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami School of Law and Kate Klonick of St. John's University of Law School break down the arguments in each case before the court. They also discuss the history and purpose of Section 230, why Congress enacted it, and how it's been interpreted over the years. They also look forward to how this case could impact platforms like Facebook, Google, YouTube, and Twitter and the future of the Internet itself. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.    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. 

On Tech Tent this week we hear how the Supreme Court is hearing claims that big tech firms such as Google and Twitter should be considered the publishers of the harmful content that appears on their platforms - Dr. Mary Anne Franks, President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, tells us how it could change the way the internet works everywhere in the world. A year on from the Russian invasion of Ukraine we speak to one of the country's thousands of tech workers about how she has adapted to living and working in a time of war - and the government tells us the tech sector has kept growing, despite the destruction and loss of life. We find out about how some internet users in South Africa have had to become night owls because of the soaring cost of mobile data. And how to ride a virtual reality jetski - just by thinking about it. (PHOTO CREDIT WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 21: (L-R) Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, look on as their attorney Eric Schnapper speaks to the press outside of the U.S. Supreme Court following oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google February 21, 2023 in Washington, DC. Oral arguments took place today in Gonzalez v. Google, a landmark case about whether technology companies should be liable for harmful content their algorithms promote. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images))

Some of the most prominent stars and high-ranking executives at Fox News privately trashed former President Trump's idea of election fraud in the 2020 election. This contradicts the lies the right-wing channel allowed on air about the presidential contest. These details were revealed in a legal filing as part of Dominion Voting System's $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Fox News. Mary Anne Franks is a constitutional scholar and teaches law at the University of Miami. She tells Anderson Cooper if she thinks Dominion's case meets the legal standard of actual malice. Plus, CNN National Correspondent Randi Kaye joins AC360 from Walterboro, South Carolina where the prosecution in the double murder trial of Alex Murdaugh rested its case after calling more than 60 witnesses to the stand. The now-disbarred attorney is accused of killing his wife and son back in 2021. To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

Sponsor Link:The Men's Guide to High-Conflict Divorce & The Police Are Not Your Friendshttps://amzn.to/36YftNlMen, Women, and Optimal Violencehttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...Mystery Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuy14...Odysee.TV: https://odysee.com/@SandmanMGTOW:cBitchute Link: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YIxe...SubscribeStar.com: https://www.subscribestar.com/sandmanPaypal / Email: Sandmanmgtow @ Gmail.comBitcoin Address: bc1qtkeru8ygglfq36eu544hxw6n9hsh22l7fkf8uvHi Everyone Sandman Here,This video is brought to you by a donation from The Chungus Among Us and here's what he briefly has to say: "Hey, I just wanted to send a short message showing my great appreciation for the work you do. Hopefully I'll eventually be able to support your work a little more my little addition will be another grain in the heap keeping you fed. Keep up the great work, you're truly saving lives Sandman!!" Well Chungus thanks for the support as YouTube continues to throttle my channel into oblivion. I wanted to share a crazy article I found called men, women, and optimal violence and here's what the summary of it says and I quote: "While both men and women can, and do, use violence against each other, men's violence against women is far more common, less justified, and more destructive than women's violence against men. One of the reasons for this asymmetry is that men do not fear retaliation for violence against women, whereas women do fear retaliation for their use of violence against men. The distribution of violence between the genders, then, is suboptimal. Society would be better off as a whole if more women were willing to engage in justified violence against men, and fewer men were willing to engage in unjustified violence against women. To that end, women's justified violence against men should be encouraged, protected, and publicized. This will require a reversal of the current trend in legal and social practices, which is to tolerate and encourage men's unjustified violence against women while discouraging and legally restricting women's violence against men. Even if encouraging an increase in women's justified violence against men may sometimes result in unjustified or disproportionate violence in individual situations, the overall effects of the redistribution of violence will be preferable to the current asymmetry." unquote So here we have a woman named Mary Anne Franks that expects men to get married and accept being a part of battered husband syndrome. She says that women that report violence from men fear retaliation. As if men don't fear being hunted down the street for hitting a woman by the popo. As if women don't have battered whamen shelters to run to if they are hit. How about instead of justifying violence against either men or women as normal we make it unacceptable for both men and women to hit each other? Men aren't even allowed to have shelters to go to if they experience spousal abuse. The feminists saw to that back in the 1970s. Every time a men's shelter is setup it's always shut down. Not to mention that Erin Pizzey opened a shelter for men and women in the 1970s and found that about half the people being abused by their spouse physically were men and the other half were women. That violence was already pretty equally distributed between the sexes. But if that were to be made a reality then it wouldn't paint women in a positive light so feminist forced her to shut down. I'll discuss more in a moment but let me first tell everyone about today's sponsor T Fitz:Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/mgtow/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

⭐️ Oferecimento: Promobit Ofertas de verdade, lojas seguras e os melhores preços da internet. Baixe agora o aplicativo do Promobit e tenha tudo isso na palma da mão. Neste Guia Prático, eu e Jacqueline Lafloufa falamos com a Yasmin Curzi, pesquisadora do Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade da Escola de Direito da FGV Rio, a respeito dos impactos indiretos e lições que a reversão do direito ao aborto nos Estados Unidos geram ao resto do mundo. O que fazer quando dados de aplicativos se transformam em armas judiciais? Apoie o Manual pelo preço de um cafezinho Gosta do podcast? Toque aqui e torne-se um(a) apoiador(a). A partir do plano II (R$ 16/mês), você acompanha as gravações ao vivo e ganha outros mimos. Indicações culturais Yasmin: O livro The Cult of the Constitution, de Mary Anne Franks; o podcast There Are No Girls On The Internet, apresentado por Bridget Todd; e a série Rugido [Apple TV+], criada por Liz Flahive e Carly Mensch. Jacque: A palestra O perigo de uma única história [TED, YouTube], de Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Ghedin: o álbum Refazenda (1974) [Deezer, Spotify, Tidal, YouTube], de Gilberto Gil.

Professor Mary Anne Franks stops by Supreme Myths to talk about guns, free speech, revenge porn, and the “Cult of the Constitution.”

Dr. Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Michael R. Klein Distinguished Scholar Chair at the University of Miami School of Law, is an expert on the intersection of civil rights and technology. She is an Affiliated Faculty member of the University of Miami Department of Philosophy and an Affiliate Fellow of the Yale Law School Information Society Project, and author of an award-winning book, The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech from Stanford Press, published in 2019. In addition to her academic responsibilities, she is President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit organization that combats online abuse and discrimination. In 2013, she drafted a model criminal statute on nonconsensual pornography- “revenge porn”- which has served as the template for multiple state laws and for proposed federal legislation to tackle the issue. Dr. Franks holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School as well as a doctorate and a master's degree from Oxford University, where she studied as a Rhodes Scholar. She previously taught at the University of Chicago Law School as a Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law and at Harvard University as a lecturer in social studies and philosophy. This month, Tech Policy Press had a chance to catch up with her about her ideas, her work, and her critics.

Last month, Miami Law's Mary Anne Franks opined in The Boston Globe that the 1st and 2nd amendments could do with an update. The piece garnered widespread attention on the left and the right. On today's show, the author of "The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to GUns and Free Speech" makes the case. Recorded January 12, 2022.

This week on The Liberty Cast, Big E talks about goals for the new year, goals the left has set to rewrite the constitution, some state legislators who want to reduce penalties for some gun crimes and a study that shows that disarmament laws do nothing to reduce crime. He gets in to all of that and much more!! Don't miss it!!SUBSCRIBE: ApplePodcasts | iHeartRADIO | Spotify | Spreaker | AndroidLeftist proposes a rewrite of the first two amendments of the Bill Of Rights. Legislators want to reduce the penalty for drive by shootings.Text of HB 1629.Fauci admits what we've all known all along.

John talks about his Poll Question of Day: "Law professor Mary Anne Franks from Miami University is arguing the First and Second Amendments should be changed because they inspire "religious-like fervor" and that both are "deeply flawed in their respective conceptualizations." Do you agree with her?" and takes your phone calls...

Earlier this month Mike participated in a content series and virtual symposium on Lessons From The First Internet Ages, hosted by the Knight Foundation, alongside several important figures from the history of the internet. On this week's episode, the creators and curators of the event — John Sands, Mary Anne Franks, and Eric Goldman — to reflect on the writings and conversations from the event and the lessons to be learned.

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.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 immunizes platforms for the behavior of their users. It's been called by some the Magna Carta of the internet—but how foundational is it? Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar at the University of Miami, thinks that Section 230 is indeed a cornerstone of the modern internet, but not in a good way. As part of Lawfare's ongoing Digital Social Contract research paper series, she recently published a paper entitled, "Section 230 and the Anti-Social Contract," in which she argues that far from expanding freedom, Section 230 has simply continued a long tradition of marginalizing the most vulnerable among us. Alan Rozenshtein spoke with her about her paper, about how Section 230 fits into the broader history of American political thought and about her ideas for a better internet.

On episode 9 of Overthink, Ellie and David dive into the concept of parrhesia (speaking truth to those in power). They discuss its origin in Ancient Greece with Socrates and Diogenes, as well as its resurgence in Foucault. The two get into modern day truth tellers such as Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Tristan Harris, Emma Sulkowicz, and more. Interested in the works discussed? Look no further:Andreas Huyssen, “Foreword: The return of Diogenes as Postmodern Intellectual”Michel Foucault, Fearless SpeechGordon Hull, “The Banality of Cynicism: Foucault and the Limits of Authentic Parrhēsia”Mary Anne Franks, “Fearless Speech”“The Social Dilemma,” dir. Jeff OrlowskiKurt Borg, “Foucault on Drugs: The Personal, the Ethical and the Political in Foucault in California”Emma Sulkowicz, "Carry That Weight"Website | overthinkpodcast.comInstagram & Twitter | @overthink_podEmail |  Dearoverthink@gmail.comYouTube | Overthink podcast

This week, Jordan and Joshua explore the light and dark sides of the deepfakes phenomena, synthesizing audio and video to replace the likeness of one person with another. Jordan and Joshua speak with Paul Shales AKA The Fakening about how he's built a career on swapping voices and faces of celebrities, and how the burgeoning technology is only getting better and harder to detect. On the other side, Dr. Hany Farid of UC Berkely and Mary Anne Franks, professor and founder of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative discuss how this deep learning technology could have dire consequences in the wrong hands. Writer Samantha Cole of VICE recounts her discussions with proprietors of deep fake pornography and how revenge porn is exploiting women without their consent or knowledge. Plus, target of revenge porn and former congresswoman Katie Hill discusses her fight to make the creators of this content more accountable and how we need to get a handle on this technology before it's too late. So are deepfakes harmless fun and expressions of our free speech or will they be the end of legitimacy on the internet as we know it? Get 20% Off + Free Shipping, with the code WILDTECH at Manscaped.com For a limited time you’ll get 10% off any order of $200 or more at Purple.com/wildtech10, promo code wildtech10! Visit EXPRESSVPN.com/WILD right now, and you can claim an extra 3 months of ExpressVPN for FREE! Go to HelloFresh.com/80wild and use code 80wild to get a total of $80 off across 5 boxes, including free shipping on your first box! Just head to totalleecase.com and use code WILDWILDTECH to get 25% off! Follow Wild Wild Tech Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/wildwildtechpod/  Twitter: https://twitter.com/wildwildtechpod/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last month's release of Netflix's "The Social Dilemma" shown the light on the social media giants' manipulation of its users in the quest for monetization. Cyberlaw expert Mary Anne Franks examines the legal implications. Recorded on October 16, 2020.

Guest speakers include Ted Hull, Patrick Allitt, Alan Charles Kors, Mary Anne Franks, Michael McConnell, Heidi Kitrosser, and Philip Carl Salzman.

In this episode, Annenberg doctoral student Sophie Maddocks speaks with leading legal scholar and cyber civil rights advocate Mary Anne Franks, whose 2019 book "The Cult of the Constitution" argues that fundamentalist interpretations of the Constitution elevate certain rights above others.

Can content on the internet harm people? How do you apply the First Amendment to online content? How can we ensure online platforms serve their purpose while keeping people safe? On this episode of The Future of Democracy, we'll hear from Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor and president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She'll share her insights as one of the leading thinkers on the harmful effects of online speech.

Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, teaches criminal law, criminal procedure, First Amendment law, Second Amendment law, family law, and Law, Policy, and Technology. Professor Franks is also an Affiliated Faculty member of the University of Miami Department of Philosophy. She also serves as the President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit organization dedicated to combating online abuse and discrimination. In today's episode, Kathryn Rubino talks with Mary Ann about her recent book The Cult of the Constitution: Our Deadly Devotion to Guns and Free Speech. Enjoy!   Episode Resources mafranks@law.miami.edu https://twitter.com/ma_franks https://www.cybercivilrights.org/   Episode Highlights Her recent book - 1:33 Being a Law Professor - 2:03 Her experience with Legal teaching - 3:40 More justice for everyone - 4:20 How she decided to write her book - 4:45 What's the cult of the Constitution? - 6:06 The nature of our Constitution - 7:40 The founders of our Constitution - 8:34 About slavery - 9:45 The rights for women and minorities - 13:47 The idea of Constitutional fundamentalist - 14:10 Talking about the Second Amendment - 14:55 Her thoughts about fundamentalists on free speech - 20:42 Abuse, women, privacy, and law - 21:50 Freedom and liberty of expression can not be separated - 22:18 Liberty of expression and abuse - 22:48 The idea of libertarianism - 24:04 The dynamics of power and free speech - 24:42     Subscribe, Share and Review To get the next episode subscribe with your favorite podcast player. Subscribe with Apple Podcasts Follow on Spotify Leave a review on Apple Podcasts

University of Miami School of Law professor Mary Anne Franks, Susan Kruth of FIRE, UVA Law student Anna Cecile Pepper ’21 and LaTarndra Strong of the Hate-Free Schools Coalition discuss the balance between protecting speech and protecting the learning environment. UVA Law professor Richard Schragger moderated the panel, which was part of the Virginia Law Review symposium “Speech Inside the Schoolhouse Gates: 50 Years After Tinker v. Des Moines,” supported by the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy. (University of Virginia School of Law, Jan. 24, 2020)

'The Cult of the Constitution' at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Cult-Constitution-Mary-Anne-Franks/dp/1503603229 See more 'Cotto/Gottfried' episodes here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Pa5w_YWKYQPq-9Haak9gg/

We Americans are defined by our Constitution and we cherish especially the First and Second Amendments. But like all texts, the Constitution can be read to empower and protect our individual rights, but it can also be used selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith. And the Constitution guarantees two things: our own personal liberties, unfettered by threats from the government, and equal treatment before the law. So is online harassment, assault weapons in every hand, and hate speech the price we all pay for the freedoms we enjoy? Or is is the price that certain people pay and others don't? Professor Mary Anne Franks, author of The Cult of the Constitution (Stanford University Press, 2019) is an expert on the First and Second Amendments and the author of several legislative bills that now govern the nonconsensual pictures of intimacy distributed online (also called "revenge porn"). She asks whether our country's faith and belief in the Constitution amounts to something like a cult, where unquestioning belief is expected of the many while a small elite decides which rights matter to whom, and who has to pay the price for other people's liberty. Professor Franks maintains that our commitment to the rule of law is now more important than even before, and that such a commitment requires a critical and intelligent reading of the Constitution, rather than blind faith. We also discussed why so many white men claim that they are victims of censorship and free speech suppression when internet platforms decline to host them, and why this argument of who is more oppressed ends up evading the tougher questions of how the Amendments work in the real world. Are disputes over the Amendments really solved with more guns, more speech, more internet? Or are there better ways of countering real-world violence, harassment, inequality, and threats? Uli Baer is a professor at New York University. He is also the host of the excellent podcast "Think About It" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We Americans are defined by our Constitution and we cherish especially the First and Second Amendments. But like all texts, the Constitution can be read to empower and protect our individual rights, but it can also be used selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith. And the Constitution guarantees two things: our own personal liberties, unfettered by threats from the government, and equal treatment before the law. So is online harassment, assault weapons in every hand, and hate speech the price we all pay for the freedoms we enjoy? Or is is the price that certain people pay and others don't? Professor Mary Anne Franks, author of The Cult of the Constitution (Stanford University Press, 2019) is an expert on the First and Second Amendments and the author of several legislative bills that now govern the nonconsensual pictures of intimacy distributed online (also called "revenge porn"). She asks whether our country's faith and belief in the Constitution amounts to something like a cult, where unquestioning belief is expected of the many while a small elite decides which rights matter to whom, and who has to pay the price for other people's liberty. Professor Franks maintains that our commitment to the rule of law is now more important than even before, and that such a commitment requires a critical and intelligent reading of the Constitution, rather than blind faith. We also discussed why so many white men claim that they are victims of censorship and free speech suppression when internet platforms decline to host them, and why this argument of who is more oppressed ends up evading the tougher questions of how the Amendments work in the real world. Are disputes over the Amendments really solved with more guns, more speech, more internet? Or are there better ways of countering real-world violence, harassment, inequality, and threats? Uli Baer is a professor at New York University. He is also the host of the excellent podcast "Think About It" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We Americans are defined by our Constitution and we cherish especially the First and Second Amendments. But like all texts, the Constitution can be read to empower and protect our individual rights, but it can also be used selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith. And the Constitution guarantees two things: our own personal liberties, unfettered by threats from the government, and equal treatment before the law. So is online harassment, assault weapons in every hand, and hate speech the price we all pay for the freedoms we enjoy? Or is is the price that certain people pay and others don't? Professor Mary Anne Franks, author of The Cult of the Constitution (Stanford University Press, 2019) is an expert on the First and Second Amendments and the author of several legislative bills that now govern the nonconsensual pictures of intimacy distributed online (also called "revenge porn"). She asks whether our country's faith and belief in the Constitution amounts to something like a cult, where unquestioning belief is expected of the many while a small elite decides which rights matter to whom, and who has to pay the price for other people's liberty. Professor Franks maintains that our commitment to the rule of law is now more important than even before, and that such a commitment requires a critical and intelligent reading of the Constitution, rather than blind faith. We also discussed why so many white men claim that they are victims of censorship and free speech suppression when internet platforms decline to host them, and why this argument of who is more oppressed ends up evading the tougher questions of how the Amendments work in the real world. Are disputes over the Amendments really solved with more guns, more speech, more internet? Or are there better ways of countering real-world violence, harassment, inequality, and threats? Uli Baer is a professor at New York University. He is also the host of the excellent podcast "Think About It" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We Americans are defined by our Constitution and we cherish especially the First and Second Amendments. But like all texts, the Constitution can be read to empower and protect our individual rights, but it can also be used selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith. And the Constitution guarantees two things: our own personal liberties, unfettered by threats from the government, and equal treatment before the law. So is online harassment, assault weapons in every hand, and hate speech the price we all pay for the freedoms we enjoy? Or is is the price that certain people pay and others don't? Professor Mary Anne Franks, author of The Cult of the Constitution (Stanford University Press, 2019) is an expert on the First and Second Amendments and the author of several legislative bills that now govern the nonconsensual pictures of intimacy distributed online (also called "revenge porn"). She asks whether our country's faith and belief in the Constitution amounts to something like a cult, where unquestioning belief is expected of the many while a small elite decides which rights matter to whom, and who has to pay the price for other people's liberty. Professor Franks maintains that our commitment to the rule of law is now more important than even before, and that such a commitment requires a critical and intelligent reading of the Constitution, rather than blind faith. We also discussed why so many white men claim that they are victims of censorship and free speech suppression when internet platforms decline to host them, and why this argument of who is more oppressed ends up evading the tougher questions of how the Amendments work in the real world. Are disputes over the Amendments really solved with more guns, more speech, more internet? Or are there better ways of countering real-world violence, harassment, inequality, and threats? Uli Baer is a professor at New York University. He is also the host of the excellent podcast "Think About It" Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

CNN legal analyst, former New Jersey and federal prosecutor, and Lowenstein Sandler Special Counsel Elie Honig joins Rich and Tina to discuss the latest developments in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump. University of Miami School of Law professor and Cyber Civil Rights Initiative President, Legislative & Tech Policy Director Dr. Mary Anne Franks discusses Congresswoman Katie Hill’s resignation in the wake of a scandal involving revenge porn and current legislation on this important issue. Marquette University Law School professor Daniel Blinka discusses the latest legal developments involving the toddler death on a Royal Caribbean cruise ship. In the Legal Grab Bag, Chicago Daily Law Bulletin editor Marc Karlinksy and McDermott Will & Emery associate Dr. Amy Mahan join Rich and Tina to discuss breaking legal news, including Alexa and an alleged Florida murder, celebrity climate change arrests, Elon Musk’s deposition, MLB Umpire Joe West’s defamation lawsuit and much more.

The Constitution of the United States is a foundational element of national mythology, an exceptional document for its time that, unlike other constitutions, is still cited in contemporary political discussions. In the October issue of Harper's Magazine, five lawmakers and legal scholars—Donna Edwards, five​-​term congresswoman from Maryland, serving in the House of Representatives; Mary Anne Franks, President and Legislative and Tech Policy Director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and author of the new book The Cult of the Constitution; David Law, Charles Nagel Chair of Constitutional Law and Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis, and the Sir Y. K. Pao Chair in Public Law at the University of Hong Kong; Lawrence Lessig, professor at Harvard Law School, specializing in constitutional and comparative constitutional law; Lewis Michael Seidman, professor at Georgetown University Law Center, specializing in constitutional law and criminal justice; and Georgetown Law professor Rosa Brooks—participated in a forum that went beyond speculations about what the framers would want and considered, among other questions, how the Constitution could be changed in an era of partisan polarization, and whether the whole thing should be scrapped and rewritten. This week's episode is an excerpt from the forum that did not appear in print, and which begins with a very topical issue: impeachment. The legal scholars and lawmakers discuss the functions and limitations of the Fourteenth Amendment, and how we could think differently about the relationship between the constitutionality and democracy of impeachment. Read the forum: https://harpers.org/archive/2019/10/constitution-in-crisis/ This episode was produced by Violet Lucca and Andrew Blevins.

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In a week marked by rising rancor, when racist rhetoric ricocheted out of the president’s twitter feed and into a chanting crowd at his reelection rally, the end of an era almost slid under the radar. Dahlia Lithwick reflects on the passing of Justice John Paul Stevens, and the more than symbolic shift from his jurisprudence, his character,  to our current state of affairs at the high court and beyond. You can read more here. And Dahlia is joined by Professor Mary Anne Franks of the University of Miami Law School to talk about her book, “The Cult of the Constitution”, how growing up among christian fundamentalists helped her write a book about constitutional extremists, and why there’s still hope for America’s faulty founding document. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We Americans are defined by our Constitution and we cherish especially the First and Second Amendments. But like all texts, the Constitution can be read to empower and protect our individual rights, but it can also be used selectively, self-servingly, and in bad faith. And the Constitution guarantees two things: our own personal liberties, unfettered by threats from the government, and equal treatment before the law. So is online harassment, assault weapons in every hand, and hate speech the price we all pay for the freedoms we enjoy? Or is is the price that certain people pay and others don't?  Professor Mary Anne Franks is an expert on the First and Second Amendments and the author of several legislative bills that now govern the nonconsensual pictures of intimacy distributed online (also called "revenge porn"). She asks whether our country's faith and belief in the Constitution amounts to something like a cult, where unquestioning belief is expected of the many while a small elite decides which rights matter to whom, and who has to pay the price for other people's liberty. Professor Franks maintains that our commitment to the rule of law is now more important than even before, and that such a commitment requires a critical and intelligent reading of the Constitution, rather than blind faith.  We also discussed why so many white men claim that they are victims of censorship and free speech suppression when internet platforms decline to host them, and why this argument of who is more oppressed ends up evading the tougher questions of how the Amendments work in the real world. Are disputes over the Amendments really solved with more guns, more speech, more internet? Or are there better ways of countering real-world violence, harassment, inequality, and threats?

U.S. companies are increasingly taking stands on social issues. Think Dick’s Sporting Goods and Levi’s signaling their support for gun control; and now Salesforce, the business software behemoth announced barring business that sell assault weapons from using its customer relationship management system. Mary Anne Franks, whose latest book The Cult of the Constitution looks at the deadly devotion to guns and free speech, unboxes both the debate and the divide. Recorded on June 12, 2019.

Amazon and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezo’s salvo aimed dead on at American Media Publisher David Pecker’s threat to publish salacious images. Miami Law cyber civil rights expert Mary Anne Franks answers the question: journalism or extortion? Recorded February 12, 2019.

What does it mean to be a “good guy with a gun” versus a “bad guy with a gun,” and how can you tell them apart? Who are the “sheep,” the “sheepdogs,” and the “wolves”? What does it mean to be law-abiding or not? And how much is the desire to own a gun about self-defense versus identity? Guests: Alexandra Filindra, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois, Chicago; Angela Stroud, Associate Professor, Sociology and Social Justice, Northland College; Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law at the University of Miami. | insicknessandinhealthpodcast.com | glow.fm/insicknessandinhealth | #EndGunViolence #GunViolence #GVP #GunSafety #MentalHealth #MentalIllness #Suicide #SuicidePrevention #MeansMatter #Instrumentality #SelfDefense #GoodGuyWithAGun #GoodGuy #Sheepdog #ERPO #ExtremeRiskProtectionOrder #RedFlag #GVPO #MassShooting #IntimatePartnerViolence #DomesticViolence #EveryTown #MomsDemandAction #MomsDemand #StudentsDemandAction #StudentsDemand #MarchForOurLives #BradyCampaign #FamilyFire #Giffords #BLM #BlackLivesMatter #ThisIsOurLane #EnoughIsEnough #NeverAgain #NationalEmergency #MedHum #MedHumChat #NarrativeMedicine #HealthHumanities #SocialMedicine #SocialJustice #SDoH

Many Americans hold dear the right to a gun for self-defense, and the passage of Stand-Your-Ground laws has expanded the right to use deadly force in self-defense in many states. But what happens when a woman uses SYG to protect herself from intimate partner violence? Guests: Caroline Light, Senior Lecturer of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, Harvard University; Callie Adams, former Marine, survivor of intimate partner violence, and cleared of murdering her husband; Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law at the University of Miami. | insicknessandinhealthpodcast.com | glow.fm/insicknessandinhealth | #EndGunViolence #GunViolence #GVP #GunSafety #MentalHealth #MentalIllness #Suicide #SuicidePrevention #MeansMatter #Instrumentality #SelfDefense #StandYourGround #SYG #ERPO #ExtremeRiskProtectionOrder #RedFlag #GVPO #MassShooting #IntimatePartnerViolence #DomesticViolence #EveryTown #MomsDemandAction #MomsDemand #StudentsDemandAction #StudentsDemand #MarchForOurLives #BradyCampaign #FamilyFire #Giffords #BLM #BlackLivesMatter #ThisIsOurLane #EnoughIsEnough #NeverAgain #NationalEmergency #MedHum #MedHumChat #NarrativeMedicine #HealthHumanities #SocialMedicine #SocialJustice #SDoH

From rancorous speech to pipe bombs, the U.S. is awash in partisanship. Apple and the big social platforms removed Infowars content from their sites. Miami Law’s Dr. Mary Anne Franks, president and policy director for the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, tackles the issues of free speech in a world of hate. Recorded in the Explainer studios on October 25, 2018.

On this week’s If Then, Slate’s April Glaser and Will Oremus talk about a somewhat surprising speech from the antitrust chief of Trump’s DOJ. They bring you up to date on a big new data privacy bill in Congress, and Mike Nuñez, a journalist for Mashable, joins the show to discuss how his reporting on alleged liberal bias at Facebook has sparked a somewhat bizarre Congressional inquiry. The hosts are also joined by Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami Law School, where she teaches criminal law, First Amendment law, and Technology policy. They speak about the massively important Communications Decency Act, which was just amended to allow victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that knowingly facilitate it. And as always, “Don’t Close My Tabs,” the Sean Hannity/Jeff Bezos edition. Timestamps: 1:40 DOJ Antitrust Speech 6:15 New data privacy bill 11:13 Diamond and Silk on Capitol Hill: phone call with Mashable’s Michael Nuñez 20:55 Zillow clarification regarding last week’s show 22:14 Interview: Professor Mary Anne Franks on amending the CDA to fight sex trafficking 44: 08 Don’t Close My Tabs Don’t Close My Tabs Links: KQED: How Sean Hannity Began His Path to Punditry on Santa Barbara Community Radio Washingtonian: Here Are the Floor Plans for Jeff Bezos’s $23 Million DC Home Podcast production by Max Jacobs. If Then plugs: You can get updates about what’s coming up next by following us on Twitter @ifthenpod. You can follow Will @WillOremus and April @Aprilaser. If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com. If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week’s If Then, Slate’s April Glaser and Will Oremus talk about a somewhat surprising speech from the antitrust chief of Trump’s DOJ. They bring you up to date on a big new data privacy bill in Congress, and Mike Nuñez, a journalist for Mashable, joins the show to discuss how his reporting on alleged liberal bias at Facebook has sparked a somewhat bizarre Congressional inquiry. The hosts are also joined by Dr. Mary Anne Franks, a professor of law at the University of Miami Law School, where she teaches criminal law, First Amendment law, and Technology policy. They speak about the massively important Communications Decency Act, which was just amended to allow victims of sex trafficking to sue websites that knowingly facilitate it. And as always, “Don’t Close My Tabs,” the Sean Hannity/Jeff Bezos edition. Timestamps: 1:40 DOJ Antitrust Speech 6:15 New data privacy bill 11:13 Diamond and Silk on Capitol Hill: phone call with Mashable’s Michael Nuñez 20:55 Zillow clarification regarding last week’s show 22:14 Interview: Professor Mary Anne Franks on amending the CDA to fight sex trafficking 44: 08 Don’t Close My Tabs Don’t Close My Tabs Links: KQED: How Sean Hannity Began His Path to Punditry on Santa Barbara Community Radio Washingtonian: Here Are the Floor Plans for Jeff Bezos’s $23 Million DC Home Podcast production by Max Jacobs. If Then plugs: You can get updates about what’s coming up next by following us on Twitter @ifthenpod. You can follow Will @WillOremus and April @Aprilaser. If you have a question or comment, you can email us at ifthen@slate.com. If Then is presented by Slate and Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, follow us on Twitter and sign up for our weekly newsletter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mary Anne Franks teaches constitutional law at the University of Miami. She’s noticed that some people don’t just admire the Constitution, they worship it. Or, at least they worship the parts that they like, parts like the First and Second Amendments. But there are lots of parts of the Constitution, and many of them are, arguably, just as important as the First and Second Amendments. How should we balance them all? Join Mary Anne and Stewart for a fascinating and enlightening conversation about how modern Americans view their most basic law.

Episode 1 of RightsUp (released 06 May 2015) Interviews with: Mary Anne Franks, Holly Jacobs, Jessica Mason, Clare McGlynn, Ann Olivarius, Erika Rackley Produced by: Kira Allmann, Max Harris, and Laura Hilly

Robin on the FDA's too-fast-track approval of drugs for women, and female workers in G-20 countries. Guests: Leslee Udwin's film India's Daughter; Lorie Mertes on a new initiative from Museum of Women in the Arts; Mary Anne Franks on "revenge porn." Mary Anne Franks: Lorie Mertes: Leslee Udwin:

• University of Miami School of Law professor, Dr. Mary Anne Franks, discusses the Supreme Court decision of the Elonis case • Mr. Elonis posted “lyrics” to his Facebook page about having his wife killed, wanting to assault her, wanting to blow up a kindergarten, among other wishes. • Disappointing decision dealt with very narrow legal issue • Statute involved was unclear on what constitutes a “threat” – does it depend upon the speaker's subjective intent, or upon the audience's fearful reaction? • Why those working to stem domestic violence are concerned about the impact of this decision • Successes of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative with large high tech firms to voluntary ban revenge porn and with proposed federal legislation

Bennet Kelley discusses The Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and the Fight Against Revenge Porn with one of the leading advocates in the fight against Revenge Porn University of Miami Law professor Mary Anne Franks. Franks is Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and has testified in state capitals across the country to push for laws addressing revenge porn.

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Mary Anne Franks back for the December 16, 2014 episode. Mary Anne Franks, an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) talks about the Anthony Elonis case that is coming up before the supreme court. Mr. Elonis of Pennsylvania was convicted of making threatening statements on Facebook about his estranged wife, law enforcement officials and a Kindergarten. He claims that these were not real threats, but instead therapy to help him deal with his broken marriage. The U.S. Supreme Court is now determining what is protected by free speech versus what constitutes a true threat that is not protected by free speech. Professor Franks walks us through the details of this interesting case. Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature).          

The Social Network Show welcomes Mary Anne Franks to the July 30, 2014 episode. Mary Anne Franks, an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law and Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) gives us an update on the legal aspects of Revenge Porn, sometimes and more correctly called non-consensual pornography. Hear Mary Anne answer the following questions: Who posts  images or personal information online about another person without their consent and is it always for revenge? Is there ever a connection to human trafficking? How is it that people are in a situation to have these photos taken and is it with or without their consent? What can young girls do to protect themselves from this type of situation? What are the states in the U.S. doing about this in the legal sense? Which States is the CCRI working with? Check out these website mentioned in this episode: Social Science Research Network and the National Conference of State Legislatures Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature).        

Six states have passed laws to address revenge porn, but critics say those laws may infringe upon First Amendment rights and subject people to needless criminal prosecution. Critics of anti-revenge porn laws believe the laws as drafted are overly broad, fail to exempt acceptable behavior, and create a chilling effect on otherwise legal expression. On this follow up episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview Lee Rowland from the ACLU and Marc Randazza from the Randazza Legal Group. Together we discuss the potentially harmful components of non-consensual porn legislation and consider alternative avenues of redress for victims. Professor Mary Anne Franks of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a proponent of criminalizing revenge porn, joins us for the second half to debate criticisms of these laws. Tune in for a spirited debate about free speech, over-criminalization, and the proper way to address the troubling issue of revenge porn. For part one of this two-part series, please listen to Revenge Porn: Societal Costs and Legislative Solutions. Lee Rowland is a Staff Attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Prior to joining the ACLU, she was a voting rights counsel with the Brennan Center for Justice, where she successfully represented the League of Women Voters of Florida and others in constitutional challenges to Florida's 2011 election law. Rowland previously ran the Reno office of the ACLU of Nevada, where she regularly argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Nevada Supreme Court. Marc Randazza is a First Amendment lawyer for the Randazza Legal Group located in Las Vegas, Nevada. A graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, he found his passion for the First Amendment while attending the University of Massachusetts at Amherst Journalism Program. Randazza has law offices in five states and represents both adult entertainment companies and private individuals. He is a regular contributor to news sources such as CNN and Fox News, and is a frequent commentator on legal issues to the international media. Professor Mary Anne Franks is the Vice President of Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She holds a Juris Doctor degree from Harvard Law School and prior to her teaching career, obtained both her Masters and Ph.D. in Modern Languages and Literature as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. As part of her continuing efforts with the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, she works with state legislatures to draft legislation against non-consensual pornography. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

The non-consensual posting of nude or sexual media by one person of another is known as Revenge Porn. Many victims report that this practice has had detrimental effects on their lives. Of those surveyed, 90 percent are women and 49 percent say they've been stalked or harassed. Despite the growing number of reports, most states' laws do not address the issue. On this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams interview victim-advocate Dr. Holly Jacobs, a victim of revenge porn herself, and Professor Mary Anne Franks, both of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Together, they discuss the technical aspects of various states' laws that allow some types of posts while forbidding others. Many factors and technicalities, including who took the picture, how the image or video was obtained, and who posted it, can dictate whether posting the item was illegal. Tune in to this very special episode to learn what individual states and the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative are doing to combat Revenge Porn. A follow up episode with guest Lee Rowland from the American Civil Liberties Union will examine other legal issues regarding Revenge Porn. It will be released on April 8th. Dr. Holly Jacobs is the Founder, President, and Executive Director of Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which is the parent organization for the End Revenge Porn Campaign. She is a national commentator and writer on the subject and holds a PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. While pursuing her graduate degrees, Jacobs became a victim of revenge porn and has since dedicated her life towards providing resources and advocacy to victims of online harassment. Professor Mary Anne Franks is the Vice President of Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. She holds a JD from Harvard Law School and prior to her teaching career, obtained both her Masters and PhD in Modern Languages and Literature as a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford University. As part of her continuing efforts with the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, she works with state legislatures to draft legislation against non-consensual pornography.

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Mary Anne Franks back for Part 2 of The Mary Anne Franks Series on cyber civil rights, March 17, 2014. Todays topic with Professor Franks, a law professor and expert on cyber civil rights, is "free speech" on social networks. Professor Franks compares the popular conception of free speech and the confusion about what the 1st Amendment really says. Listen to the show to learn more about the following: Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act which gives immunity for online service providers and users from actions against them based on content of 3rd parties; Social Networks policies on content and what are they allowed to do; The legal case of the gossip website, "The Dirty", and the reason the owner was found responsible for content; Thoughts on how we can civilize the internet; The best way to communicate with social networks regarding their policies on content and the watchdog groups you can connect with. Professor Franks shares these links to the watchdog groups: http://www.endmisogyny.org/ Twitter misogyny_online http://www.everydaysexism.com/  Twitter @EverydaySexism http://www.seejane.org/  Geena Davis's organization Here's the open letter re: Facebook's anti-woman pages, including many links to great organizations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/soraya-chemaly/an-open-letter-to-faceboo_1_b_3307394.html On gender and race: http://www.mediawatch.com/ Race: http://racismwatch.newsvine.com/ Mary Anne Franks is an Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Law. She teaches, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Family Law. Professor Franks is also the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative which is a nonprofit organization that raises awareness about cyber harassment and advocates for legal and social reform. This work has allowed her to work with legislators to draft laws against "revenge porn". Before working at the University of Miami Law School, Professor Franks was a Bigelow Fellow and lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago Law School and a lecturer in Social Studies at Harvard University. She received her J.D. from Harvard Law School and received her D. Phil and M. Phil from Oxford University where she studied on a Rhodes Scholarship. (D. Phil and M. Phil, U. S. equivalent of doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy. Professor Franks earned her degrees in Modern Languages and Literature). You can connect with Professor Franks on the CCRI website or on Twitter.        

The Social Network Show welcomes Professor Mary Anne Franks and Dorie Clark to the Feburary 14, 2014 episode. Professor Franks is a law professor at University of Miami School of Law and VP of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. She discusses the legal aspects of "revenge porn" on the show and what is being done about it. Dorie Clark is a branding expert, author and marketing strategy consultant and talks about branding, and gives advice to bloggers on the show.