Share this page!

Ari Cohn Profile picture
Twitter logo
27 Apr, 6 tweets, 4 min read
1/ Imagine that, @WSJopinion continues to have absolutely no editorial standards, publishing yet another completely asinine anti-#Section230 op-ed. This time it's from @SenatorHagerty / @BillHagertyTN, who gets the law embarrassingly wrong for a US senator
wsj.com/articles/goodb…
2/ The first paragraph tells you just how stupid this piece is about to be, demonstrating that @BillHagertyTN @SenatorHagerty has absolutely no idea that the First Amendment protects you only from government regulation of/punishment for speech. Shameful for an elected official.
3/ So it is perhaps unsurprising that he also doesn't know (or is just flat-out lying) that the purpose of Section 230 was actually to enable web providers to establish content moderation guidelines, and not to enable anyone to say anything they want on any website they choose.
4/ So he's proposed yet another asinine bill.
5/ But here's the problem. Social media platforms are not common carriers, as @BerinSzoka and myself explained here: lawfareblog.com/wall-street-jo…
Ok ok, I'm going to try to be nicer and more benefit-of-the-doubty here, despite this being total argle-bargle, so here's a good piece from @BerinSzoka & @corbinkbarthold addressing the "but Justice Thomas" argument: lawfareblog.com/justice-thomas…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Ari Cohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AriCohn

Ari Cohn Profile picture
22 Apr
1/ Twitter filed its motion to dismiss in the suit brought by the owner of the repair shop that had Hunter Biden's laptop, who claims Twitter's explanation for blocking the article defamed him. Twitter says he failed to plead...well...everything.

Filing: courtlistener.com/docket/5930032…
2/ Love that they led off with a cite to Bongino's failure.
3/ Twitter correctly points out that the plaintiff's interpretation of the allegedly defamatory statements aren't the relevant locus of analysis. It's the actual words used.
Read 10 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
21 Apr
This kind of threat only works on someone who isn't comfortable being unapologetically themselves and standing by what they say.

Says something about the person making it, though.
It's almost like she thinks she can hurt my reputation as someone who defends people who get sued/otherwise in trouble for offending people by saying "HE SAID A MEAN THING."

It's not like I have a BigLaw partnership to answer to, unlike someone.
Sure will suck to have some patent litigation partners think I'm a jerk. Don't know how I'll sleep at night.
Read 4 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
19 Apr
1/ This is infuriatingly terrible journalism. First of all, this passage is at absolute best incomprehensible nonsense, and at worst is just wrong on the law. Stop using the "fire in a crowded theater" language because it 1000% of the time makes you look stupid. Image
2/ Quoting a "futurist and brand strategist" (@AKeynoteSpeaker lolol) as an expert on First Amendment law is a masterclass in barrel scraping. There are plenty of people who actually know what they're talking about that you could have asked. Why would you choose some rando? ImageImage
3/ The incitement standard is clear: speech directed to inciting, and likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

Calling for action in the event of a verdict that hasn't been issued *clearly* does not constitute proscribable incitement. A competent lawyer could tell you this.
Read 4 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
8 Apr
Taking a page out of Trump's playbook, MuslimAdvocates filed a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and its execs violated DC consumer protection laws because they *say* they remove "hate speech" but MuslimAdvocates doesn't think they do a good enough job. muslimadvocates.org/2021/04/muslim…
This performative lawsuit will be dismissed, and I can't help but feel that we may well see people who want no content moderation praising #Section230 and people who oppose those people arguing for compelled content moderation. Because, ya know...
Content moderation is extremely difficult to do well at scale, and impossible to do perfectly. We're all better off if everyone, regardless of whether they want more or less content moderation, are blocked from bringing lawsuits because they saw online expression they didn't like
Read 4 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
11 Mar
1/ These absolute clowns really submitted a brief saying that profanity by minors isn't protected by the First Amendment because of the fighting words doctrine and rules about what broadcasters can air.

Absolute garbage that is not only bad lawyering, but anti-free speech.
2/ First of all, Chaplinski is barely even good law. But more to the point, arguing "some things aren't protected" is not a valid argument. See Trope #3: popehat.com/2015/05/19/how…
3/ And citing to FCC rules is just pure nonsense. As I've explained dozens (hundreds?) of times, broadcasters licensed to utilize public airwaves are subject to increased regulation on their expression.

Those regulations are not applicable to LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE.
Read 6 tweets
Ari Cohn Profile picture
10 Mar
1/ Well look at what we have here. Phillip Hamburger rears his head again, butchering/lying about laws and precedents that he clearly doesn't understand (@berinszoka and I have put him under the broiler before: lawfareblog.com/wall-street-jo…)

wyofile.com/bills-bring-na…
2/ This Wyoming bill looks like a clone of the ND bill that I previously discussed here: .

Anyway, since I already analyzed one of these stupid bills, you can go read that to learn why this one's also preempted and unconstitutional.
3/ N.B., in that thread I noted that Hamburger's org, @NCLAlegal, was behind the bill. They emailed me to say "not true." I replied with the video of the ND legislator explicitly naming them as working with them on the bill.

I got no reply.
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AriCohn has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AriCohn!

Read all threads by @AriCohn