Genevieve Lakier

Professor of Law, University of Chicago. Thinks a lot about freedom of speech. Still figuring out her Twitter self.

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@NelsonTebbe and I have a new piece on how we think the First A could and should apply to the social media platforms. Tldr: the First Amendment Qs raised by content moderation are NOT easy, or shouldN'T be. https://t.co/wHvVoCvpda

[Richard M. Re @RichardMRe]

.⁦@glakier⁩ on Carr and jawboning https://t.co/flug5IHl1X

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

I blogged about why the demand letter the Trump admin sent to Harvard last week violates the First A even if Harvard doesn't comply--and why Harvard really *shouldn't* comply with this kind of jawboning. https://t.co/MU0g2CVGWg

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

My take on why SCOTUS's willingness to uphold the TikTok ban--and all of the craziness that has followed since--is a very bad sign for freedom of speech under the Trump administration. https://t.co/on5xt2C620

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

What will the regulation of social media look like in the Trump era? What guard rails will the 1A impose?
@evelyndouek and I explore some of these questions--and the perennial question of whether 1A law *is* the modern Lochner--in our new HLR Essay. https://t.co/4Ep3VBPbKS

[Jameel Jaffer @JameelJaffer]

"Does Title VI Require Private Universities to Restrict Student Speech?" -- from @dorfonlaw, the latest installment in @knightcolumbia's series on Title VI and the First Amendment. https://t.co/N1sFBDld4D

[Jameel Jaffer @JameelJaffer]

Federal judge says University of Maryland can't ban Students for Justice in Palestine from hosting a vigil on Oct. 7. A thoughtful opinion and an important First Amendment victory. Link below, w a few excerpts.

[Will Creeley @WillatFIRE]

Yes. Writing for @knightcolumbia, Professors @glakier and @evelyndouek identify the serious threat to campus speech rights posed by the Dep't of Education's Title VI enforcement and suggest useful ameliorative steps.

https://t.co/OAZRCBhVS8

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@marty_lederman @ColumbiaLaw @knightcolumbia @daphnehk @ACLU @DavidColeACLU @JameelJaffer Dunno. If Mt Healthy applies, the judges could defend by showing they would've taken the problematic actions (refusing to hire CLS grads) anyway. Which is why it's a bad test. But I agree this is jawboning and should be treated as such. Just explaining why it mightn't be obvious.

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@marty_lederman @ColumbiaLaw @knightcolumbia @daphnehk @ACLU @DavidColeACLU @JameelJaffer Not *obvious* at all, but the jawboning would have been clearer if the judges had said "unless you change speech policies, we won't hire." As is, this might be retaliation, not jawboning, which Justice Jackson argued makes a diff (I disagree but Vullo majority didn't reach the Q)

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@superwuster Oh, do I have a paper for you! (Spoiler: it's not an oddity at all but a consequence of First A "absolutism") https://t.co/vtw4qEs34y

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@GraysonClary @evelyndouek But both are viewpoint discriminatory I think.

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@GraysonClary @evelyndouek My working hypo is that the Ct doesn't want to open the door to args that political motivations for lawmaking make those laws unconstitutional. If partisan gerrymandering is ok, surely partisan lawmaking is too, so long as you can find some pretextual reason to do it.

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

A podcast in which @evelyndouek and I explain how SCOTUS's decisions yesterday in the Netchoice cases is like Citizens United for the internet...

[Evelyn Douek @evelyndouek]

Here's @glakier and me on SCOTUS' Netchoice decision. Hey, it's not the worst decision issued yesterday! But we still have plenty of critique...

https://t.co/6bmw0im12C

[Evelyn Douek @evelyndouek]

The Supreme Court's jawboning decision is out and--just as anticipated--so is @glakier's and my conversation about it! There's a lot to like in the majority decision, but also some reasons to be worried about what it might mean for future jawboning claims

https://t.co/CIT10Dv8Eu

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@daphnehk @marty_lederman @JameelJaffer @scottwilkens @e_armijo @evelyndouek dunno if it is part of the state action per se, but definitely one of the facts that creates a plausible claim of unconstitutional coercion, as @marty_lederman noted

[Genevieve Lakier @glakier]

@daphnehk @marty_lederman @JameelJaffer @scottwilkens @e_armijo @evelyndouek The majority cites the consent decrees as evidence that the targeted parties recognized Vullo's/Cuomo's speech as coercive. "The reaction from Lloyd’s further confirms the communications’ coercive nature." p14

[Ethan Sandweiss @the_real_sand]

BREAKING: @ACLUIndiana is filing suit against @IUBloomington on behalf of 3 protesters arrested and banned from campus. @WFIUWTIUNews

[Jameel Jaffer @JameelJaffer]

We launched this podcast to explore the free speech fallout of the war in a principled, rigorous, reflective way. Listeners will have to decide whether we’re succeeding—but thanks to @glakier @VolokhConspirac @radhikasainath @WillatFIRE for talking w me. https://t.co/pEbDuv3VJc

[Steve Sanders @SteveSSanders]

The @IUBloomington administration evidently changed a longstanding time/place/manner protest policy and imposed a new one yesterday, in anticipation of the Dunn Meadow protest. This makes it difficult to argue the policy was viewpoint-neutral, as the First Amendment requires.