Thread by @FreeLawProject

There's a lot going on with this bill to enhance judicial security. The Senate Judiciary Committee just voted on it and, yeah, no politician is going to vote against a bill literally named after a judge's horrifically murdered son. But there's cause for concern here. 1/

https://twitter.com/uscourts/status/1466434482362150912

We'd hoped not to get involved with this bill, but it affects us directly. It makes it illegal for a site like CourtListener to post certain kinds of information about judges online. We'd have to start taking down information if this passed (or fighting @uscourts in court). 2/

If that sounds like a #1A violation to you, you'd find yourself on a lonely podium. The bill is being pushed by @uscourts, is endorsed by the American Bar Association, and the major associations for judges. It gained half a dozen co-sponsors in the Senate today. 3/

Somebody please tell us how it is Constitutional to force a website to take down a judge's birthday? @USConst_Amend_I, maybe you have an opinion? Just at a glance, this bill would affect @Britannica, @wikimediapolicy, @smithsonian. Oh, and @FJC_Research of course. 4/

So far three orgs have passed on helping us oppose this bill. It seems they don't want the fight. We don't either —to be clear, we support more security for judges! But it needs to be done in a way that is measured and constitutional, not reactive. 5/

It feels a bit like we're missing something major here, but if the bill passes, there's a good chance parts of our website would be illegal overnight.

Hopefully somebody can help gingerly amend the bill before it's too late?

Here's the bill: congress.gov/bill/117th-con… 6/6

Epilogue: Senators justified the bill today by noting the rising threats they and judges receive. None, however, mentioned ways they could make the country safer not just for judges, but for everybody. Rising violence is now a given, and the prescription is security to match. 7/6