A Law Dork Q&A with Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about Monday's upcoming SCOTUS arguments.
A superb interview. Alex Adbo's passionate but reasoned advocacy for 1A is well complimented by his erudition. For lay followers of the Court, it's sometimes easy to write off (or at least, be suspicious of) frequent amicus brief submitters as "too partisan". Here, Adbo's words remind us that whether you agree with them or not, behind those efforts are really smart lawyers genuinely trying to make American jurisprudence better.
Very helpful discussion of the complexities of the case.
The thing that stood out to me so far was the heavy-handed opinion of a few of the conservative justices that some very egregious conduct was going on. From my vantage point, that seemed overblown. This goes to the 5th Cir. thinking the coercion is so obvious that the weaker test the advocate here finds inappropriate is met.
Not letting some conservative bugaboos overshadow the doctrinal issues is important. Thanks.
Yes. The thing that always puzzled me was what KIND of threats the government made to the social media platforms that could be called coercion. Shut them down? Tax them more? I don't recall what the underlying facts were, other than a vague recollection that the "twitter chronicles" Musk insisted were probative of something were anything but. Did the District Judge actually cite the "threats" and explain why they were coercive?
This seems to be a subset of a larger problem we have today with the First Amendment--the fact that one has a First Amendment right to lie. And when the powerful do so, whether people or platform, the lies can infect how society even thinks about important issues. What is new since the internet is the vastly increased audience for such lies. This is a pretty banal observation, but no less true.
I say it is a problem. I don't think the answer is somehow punishing lies. I think the First Amendment does allow lies, at least those that don't involve defamation or intent for the lie to cause imminent harm (the basic "fire in a crowded theater.)" But we do need to recognize that it IS a problem.
So I agree that whatever test the government applies shouldn't impede the research needed to see just how big a problem it is.
So interesting--I feel as though I understand this complicated issue so much better, and without you, I wouldn't have even known how complicated it is! As I was reading, I thought about the warning on cigarette packages. The government clearly persuaded/forced that tobacco companies to include it. How does that fit in with these cases?
So interesting! I did feel by the end of the interview that I understood the situation, which is pretty complicated. It made me think of the warning on cigarette packages. The government persuaded/ forced the tobacco companies to put it there. How does that relate to these cases?
I am very disappointed that this discussion, like so many matters of law, deals with nuances of procedure and responsibility, instead of CONTENT. Speaking as a physician, to me, this is a hugely important case because of the CONTENT and its harms. Our society accepts restrictions on free speech with regard to e.g. yelling "fire" in a theater and the content of the communications under discussion actually are likely to have killed people exposed to COVID-19 unprotected. The government has a basic social and civic responsibility to curtail this speech. Just because it has taken on a "political, partisan" aspect is no reason for our government to be restrained from doing its best to protect all of us and promote our security.
I get what you’re saying — although I would disagree with some of it, quite strongly, on both the law and the comparison.
I would note, though, as the introduction makes clear, those facts are being discussed less here intentionally because the law from this case could eventually control — and be essential to understanding — *all* of these types of interactions, and I decided that there should be at least one piece fully devoted to that.
(There are many, many reports you can read on the facts, one of which was published today and is now linked in the intro. Also, in my past coverage, I have made clear my concerns with this case.)
Finally, in the test Abdo discusses, those interests you’re discussing would be factored into it, particularly in the second area of consideration, where he said, “The government reflects the views of the majority that put it into power and is uniquely situated to help steer public attention toward the most important issues of the day. The government has an important role to play in that regard.”
I certainly think the facts matter to the case. The law, however, will matter in all circumstances, so we should at least give it some thought, too.
A superb interview. Alex Adbo's passionate but reasoned advocacy for 1A is well complimented by his erudition. For lay followers of the Court, it's sometimes easy to write off (or at least, be suspicious of) frequent amicus brief submitters as "too partisan". Here, Adbo's words remind us that whether you agree with them or not, behind those efforts are really smart lawyers genuinely trying to make American jurisprudence better.
Very helpful discussion of the complexities of the case.
The thing that stood out to me so far was the heavy-handed opinion of a few of the conservative justices that some very egregious conduct was going on. From my vantage point, that seemed overblown. This goes to the 5th Cir. thinking the coercion is so obvious that the weaker test the advocate here finds inappropriate is met.
Not letting some conservative bugaboos overshadow the doctrinal issues is important. Thanks.
Yes. The thing that always puzzled me was what KIND of threats the government made to the social media platforms that could be called coercion. Shut them down? Tax them more? I don't recall what the underlying facts were, other than a vague recollection that the "twitter chronicles" Musk insisted were probative of something were anything but. Did the District Judge actually cite the "threats" and explain why they were coercive?
This seems to be a subset of a larger problem we have today with the First Amendment--the fact that one has a First Amendment right to lie. And when the powerful do so, whether people or platform, the lies can infect how society even thinks about important issues. What is new since the internet is the vastly increased audience for such lies. This is a pretty banal observation, but no less true.
I say it is a problem. I don't think the answer is somehow punishing lies. I think the First Amendment does allow lies, at least those that don't involve defamation or intent for the lie to cause imminent harm (the basic "fire in a crowded theater.)" But we do need to recognize that it IS a problem.
So I agree that whatever test the government applies shouldn't impede the research needed to see just how big a problem it is.
Gah...my head hurts.
So interesting--I feel as though I understand this complicated issue so much better, and without you, I wouldn't have even known how complicated it is! As I was reading, I thought about the warning on cigarette packages. The government clearly persuaded/forced that tobacco companies to include it. How does that fit in with these cases?
So interesting! I did feel by the end of the interview that I understood the situation, which is pretty complicated. It made me think of the warning on cigarette packages. The government persuaded/ forced the tobacco companies to put it there. How does that relate to these cases?
I am very disappointed that this discussion, like so many matters of law, deals with nuances of procedure and responsibility, instead of CONTENT. Speaking as a physician, to me, this is a hugely important case because of the CONTENT and its harms. Our society accepts restrictions on free speech with regard to e.g. yelling "fire" in a theater and the content of the communications under discussion actually are likely to have killed people exposed to COVID-19 unprotected. The government has a basic social and civic responsibility to curtail this speech. Just because it has taken on a "political, partisan" aspect is no reason for our government to be restrained from doing its best to protect all of us and promote our security.
I get what you’re saying — although I would disagree with some of it, quite strongly, on both the law and the comparison.
I would note, though, as the introduction makes clear, those facts are being discussed less here intentionally because the law from this case could eventually control — and be essential to understanding — *all* of these types of interactions, and I decided that there should be at least one piece fully devoted to that.
(There are many, many reports you can read on the facts, one of which was published today and is now linked in the intro. Also, in my past coverage, I have made clear my concerns with this case.)
Finally, in the test Abdo discusses, those interests you’re discussing would be factored into it, particularly in the second area of consideration, where he said, “The government reflects the views of the majority that put it into power and is uniquely situated to help steer public attention toward the most important issues of the day. The government has an important role to play in that regard.”
I certainly think the facts matter to the case. The law, however, will matter in all circumstances, so we should at least give it some thought, too.
Excellent interview. Thank you both.