Kristine Frazao of Sinclair Broadcasting interviewed me for this clip, which ran on many broadcast stations from coast to coast, and also in this associated news article:

“In America, we’ve got First Amendment that controls what a government can do and by the same token it does not control what a newspaper can do, a radio station can do or what a social media platform can do,” said Walter Olson, a Senior Fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies.

In other words, social media platforms are private companies, and can, therefore, choose how to label content. Still, there have been concerns raised about political bias among these independent fact-checkers, and others concerned that pushing things underground or offline may breathe new life into conspiracy theories.

“There has always been a strong argument that the way to refute bad ideas is to get them out there so people can shoot at them,” Olson said in an interview Monday. “Air them out, put some sunshine against them, it’s healthy against a virus too, and against the virus [of] a thought.”

Social media moderation and the First Amendment is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“A case awaiting acceptance by the Supreme Court challenges required fees paid by attorneys to State Bar of Wisconsin. Much of that money then goes to fund extensive lobbying. Trevor Burrus and Andrew Grossman comment.” [Cato Daily Podcast with Caleb Brown on Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin, distributed for Supreme Court conference of May 15; earlier]

High court challenge to mandatory bar dues, cont’d is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

First Amendment might not let Mississippi licensing board go after online map service is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

COVID-19 pandemic roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Will SCOTUS review a challenge to mandatory bar dues? is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Ninth Circuit panel: YouTube isn’t a state actor is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Public university professor: First Amendment should bar required union representation is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The [proposed] Rule adopts a specific philosophical viewpoint–promoting diversity and inclusion–and makes it the orthodoxy for attorneys. Under this proposed rule, those who do not adopt that philosophy will be violating a “duty” and “ethical obligation.” Those who choose not to attend certain CLE classes would now be disregarding an aspirational goal….

Not every attorney agrees that “every lawyer has a professional duty to undertake affirmative steps to remedy de facto and de jure discrimination, eliminate bias, and promote equality, diversity and inclusion in the legal profession.” Far too many attorneys–especially academics–take this statement as an unassailable fact of life. It’s not.

Bar associations exist to promote and regulate the legal profession. They do not exist to promote specific ideologies.

Compare ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), which Blackman and many others have argued is a step toward an unconstitutional speech code for attorneys, and the mandatory statements of support for diversity, equity and inclusion in the University of California system and elsewhere in higher education.

“The first portion of the rule would impose a duty on all attorneys to promote diversity and inclusion.” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Why can’t trade associations practice law? is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

In August a panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled unanimously that the First Amendment did not block such a suit; earlier this month the panel reissued an altered opinion after one of its members, Judge Don Willett, changed his mind and wrote a partial dissent finding Mckesson to have a First Amendment defense. [Jonathan Adler, Volokh Conspiracy] Central to the constitutional issues at play here is the 1982 case of NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, in which a unanimous Supreme Court held that the First Amendment can bar the imposition of civil liability on organizers of protests even when some participants commit, or threaten, acts of violence.

Eugene Volokh has now written a series of posts on the case. Part I asks: why didn’t Mckesson’s lawyers invoke doctrines precluding recovery by rescue professionals (“firefighters’ rule”) to bar the officer’s claim? Part II is on the tort law side of the case (independent of the First Amendment angle), and so far as I can see Volokh and Willett reach different conclusions. In Part III, Volokh addresses the First Amendment issues, in the light of precedents like Claiborne Hardware. While the analysis is not a simple one, Volokh is “inclined to say that the First Amendment doesn’t require” immunity for foreseeable civil harms resulting from unlawful blocking of public roads as a protest.

Doe v. Mckesson: liability for foreseeable injury from unlawful protest is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system