On the other hand, how can you ignore this part of the Act when it’s obviously relevant to whether the Act’s speaker discrim is a subterfuge for content discrim?

I agree this is weird. I wonder if they’re saying “because this is an as applied challenge, we assess only express designation of TikTok, not the more general designation framework, and so we leave for another day whether that part of the Act is content neutral.”

It is unclear whose speech will be monitored and how, and what, if any, guardrails will be put into place. A report by one outlet that has seen the plan states only that "[s]ome of what ... will be assess[ed] includes specific and credible threats that are flagged online," /3

To date, the administration has shared only very limited information about the initiative, which was announced as part of suite of new actions aimed at combating antisemitism at colleges and universities. /2

Professor Vickery explains how the ban has forced her to abandon or suspend research projects and to change both the content of her courses and the way she teaches them. knightcolumbia.org/documents/7v...

Meanwhile, the ban undermines academic freedom and impedes vital research about one of the most important communications platforms of our time. Declarations from
@ethanz.bsky.social of the Coalition for Independent Tech Research, and Jacqueline Vickery, a UNT prof and Coalition member, explain how.

In support of our request, we submitted a declaration from Bruce Schneier, one of the nation’s foremost experts on computer security. knightcolumbia.org/documents/55.... As Schneier explains, applying the ban to public university faculty fails utterly to address Texas's concerns:

As our brief explains, the ban isn’t a sensible or constitutional response to data-collection or disinformation concerns. In fact, it’s counterproductive because it inhibits independent research about the very risks Texas says it cares about. knightcolumbia.org/documents/w8...