I totally believe that this "university" invoking John Adams and featuring Sohrab Ahmari is deeply committed to the principles of free speech.
When @uaustinorg gets funding for a building, they will inevitably name it "Yes THAT Joe McCarthy Hall"
"It is vitally important that we create our own institution to escape these illiberal people who are hostile to free speech, but essential that we include people who are illiberal and hostile to free speech"
"Sohrab's desire for government crackdowns on free speech are deserving of respect and consideration, unlike those woke people's desire for government crackdowns on free speech WHICH ARE JUST DIFFERENT OK, SHUT UP AND STOP ASKING QUESTIONS"
Now and I are belong to us.
If @uaustinorg is actively seeking out advisers who are hostile to free speech and open inquiry on other grounds, I'm very receptive to the argument that having those contrarian voices is important.

But if it's just Sohrab, I think that points to something else entirely.

• • •

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

3 Nov
1/ I usually hesitate to crap on student newspaper articles, but this piece was actually written by the paper's advisor, @mdgiusti, who is the journalism *chair* and clearly not doing students any favors in the "make sure what you're writing isn't totally wrong" department.
2/ Off to a bad start, completely mangling the history. First of all, "everyone saw they were different?" No.

Second, Cubby Inc. v. Compuserve (one of the cases leading to 230) was actually about distributor liability, which has nothing to do with the decision to publish. Image
3/ Instead, the court in Cubby found that Compuserve was a distributor, and thus would have had to have actual or constructive knowledge of content's defamatory nature (and plaintiffs hadn't produced any such evidence) before liability could be imposed for speech on its service.
Read 17 tweets
3 Nov
I regret to inform you that Josh Hammer has gotten no less (a) bad at writing, and (b) dumb.
Get this man some vegetables already, because he keeps making salad out of words.
I have a theory that if Josh Hammer doesn't use "telos" or "teleology" at least once in every single thing he writes, he would die.

It's really the only explanation.
Read 4 tweets
16 Oct
John Catanzara is an unmitigated asshole shitbird.

But I really should not have to tell you, @mawarnerjr, that encouraging police officers to violate the city's vaccine mandate is absolutely not "sedition."

Shameful that those words escaped your mouth.

nbcchicago.com/news/local/jud…
Not for nothing, the question of whether it is proscribable incitement may be a closer call, given that Illinois law prohibits strikes/work stoppages by police officers.

But sedition it is definitely not.
"Advocating anarchy" is also protected by the First Amendment, by the way.
Read 8 tweets
23 Sep
1/ Business school profs have just *got* to stop writing these articles about Section 230. Or at least have someone with an understanding of the law review it. It's embarrassing.

This one comes to us from a dean at @MITSloan, and it's a doozy.

cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021…
2/ The theme of the article is clear from the top: Section 230 is Very Bad because it makes it difficult to hold platforms available for misinformation/disinformation that people spread online.
3/ But what Professor Cusumano doesn't grapple with (they never do) is whether platforms could be held accountable by law for such user content even without Section 230.
Read 22 tweets
23 Sep
The worst part of this piece about leaving BigLaw is that everyone but me stayed anonymous.

All they said was basically "the extreme hours and stress weren't worth it to me"

That shouldn't be cause to fear for your career. That it is, is an indictment.

businessinsider.com/former-big-law…
2/ Everyone has BigLaw horror stories. But more often than not, those aren't the singular reason why people choose to leave. It's much more, in my experience anyway, overarching quality of life and/or professional interests/satisfaction concerns.
3/ Few BigLaw expats that I've met are out there trash talking their own firms. Who even does that?

For my part, I worked with some ridiculously talented lawyers who happened to also be nice people and good colleagues that I learned a great deal from and think of fondly.
Read 7 tweets
21 Sep
In fact it very much is, and the authors of the bill have said so explicitly.

The purpose of Section 230 was to reduce barriers to websites deciding for themselves what content to permit, and what rules to impose. And that's exactly what is happening.
Displaying either ignorance of how the law is applied, or rank dishonesty (made more likely by the "original purpose" claim)

Courts would still dismiss lawsuits based on content moderation decisions under (c)(1), where most of them are resolved.

They...have? Section 230 does not protect against the enforcement of criminal laws. It's dishonest bullshit all the way down with her.

Read 4 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

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(