Amazing episode. @mchangama.bsky.social makes his triumphant debut, and @jkosseff.bsky.social his glorious return.
I pepper them with hard questions about the future of free speech, and they do nothing but shine. Don't miss it.
How do we reverse the global free speech recession?
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, @mchangama.bsky.social and @jkosseff.bsky.social discuss their fantastic new book, The Future of Free Speech.
techfreedom.simplecast.com/episodes/434...
We’ve declared jihad on the Butlerian Jihad.
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, @techfreedom.org’s @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social, @santanaboulton.bsky.social, and @andyjungtech.bsky.social discuss the future of AI and free expression.
podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/433...
Cox v. Sony is out! An ISP is not liable for copyright claims if it “merely provid[es] a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”
For expert analysis, check out our episode on the oral argument with @pamelasamuelson.bsky.social.
🗓️ Register for our in-person event on Monday, March 30 (12–2 PM).
Join @techfreedom.org & Georgetown Law’s Tech Institute for a discussion on how the First Amendment limits the FTC’s powers, particularly as it ramps up investigations into media & tech over alleged bias.
tinyurl.com/y8jzyz37
📢 Let's clear the air: There’s a lot of misinformation about Section 230.
The reality is that today's user-driven Internet simply wouldn't exist without it. As we mark the 30th anniversary of the law that helped create the Internet, we're debunking some common misconceptions.
TechFreedom. AI + 1A: Why the First Amendment Protects Artificial Intelligence. Corbin K. Barthold. March 2026.
1/ Are AI outputs free speech under the First Amendment? Yes.
Polling on AI is ... bad. Meanwhile, I'm like Butters in South Park, unironically marveling at how awesome it is.
So maybe I'm just asking for a ratio, but I wrote a big paper arguing that AI outputs deserve First Amendment protection.
2/ The case has little to do with whether you like AI, and a lot to do with how scared you should be of letting the government control what AI says.
I threw a ton into this thing, and I hope my law nerds will read it all!
techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...
New Tech Policy podcast!
Host @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social speaks at State of the Net with @joellthayer.bsky.social (Digital Progress Institute), @ashkhen.bsky.social (@futurefreespeech.org) and Luke Hogg (FAI). They discuss how the First Amendment should work in a world of algorithms and AI.
PEN America has joined 75+ free speech experts to call on FCC chairman Brendan Carr to stop weaponizing the agency's rules to censor media coverage the President doesn't like. (1/2)
My statement on the National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence:
Today, @knightcolumbia.org joined @techfreedom.org and other orgs to urge FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to stop pressuring news broadcasters over their coverage. Recent threats by Carr and President Trump constitute unconstitutional jawboning & threaten #pressfreedom.
knightcolumbia.org/blog/knight-...
FCC Chair Brendan Carr keeps violating the First Amendment. Today, @cdt.org joined @techfreedom.org, civil society orgs, First Amendment experts, and former FCC Commissioners in a letter to Chair Carr expressing our concerns with the weaponization of the FCC to censor speech.
Here's @freepress.bsky.social statement on this important rebuke of Brendan Carr's attacks on free speech and freedom of the press, w/ @techfreedom.org, @publicknowledge.bsky.social, @eff.org, @penamerica.bsky.social, @knightcolumbia.org, @aclu.org & dozens more.
www.freepress.net/news/leading...
Attn: Members of Congress who allegedly care about "jawboning" and government censorship.
I've argued with @techfreedom.org for years about policy. But we're on the same side here because we believe in free speech, press freedom and the government staying out of newsrooms and editorial decisions.
Chair Carr has offered to help broadcast media get their facts straight. "Facts" means only positive coverage of the President. "Help" means the threat of federal license review.
He knows the First Amendment limits what the FCC can actually do here. Doesn't matter, bc the threats are working.
See the coalition letter we and 70+ groups and First Amendment experts sent to the Commission in September over Carr's threats against Jimmy Kimmel
techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...
5) withdraw pending threats, esp. an instruction to television, but NOT radio, broadcasters to seek preclearance from the FCC before interviewing political candidates
6) practice what Carr said in 2019: “The FCC does not have a roving mandate to police speech in the name of the ‘public interest.’”
3) initiate the rulemaking Carr has suggested to clarify the “public interest” standard with the precision required by the First Amendment
4) “exercise its powers in a more formal way, by means of approved publicprocedures and not through lifted eyebrows or jawboning.”
The FCC should:
1) like the Reagan FCC in 1985, “repudiate[] the notion that it [is] proper fora governmental authority to intervene actively in the marketplace of ideas.
2) either grant or deny our petition to end the dangerous news distortion policy
protectdemocracy.org/wp-content/u...
Republican Chairman Ajit Pai could “hardly think of an action morechilling of free speech than the federal government investigating a broadcast station because of disagreement with its news coverage or promotion of that coverage.”
That's exactly what Carr is doing, shamelessly
Carr's vague notion of fake news, news distortion and the public interest “fails to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,” and “is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement
Moody v. Netchoice (2024), the Supreme Court rejected government efforts “to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks is biased.” That's exactly what Carr is doing.
The full letter: techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...
FCC Chair Brendan Carr is weaponizing the “public interest” standard against viewpoints he dislikes. Such jawboning violates the First Amendment, due process, and the rule of law. 75+ civil society groups & free speech experts joined us in this coalition letter 🧵
techfreedom.org/fcc-threats-...
"Today's decision illustrates that such bills will likely fail First Amendment scrutiny unless they offer much clearer guidance on how to avoid liability."
@berinszoka.bsky.social of @techfreedom.org responds to the Ninth Circuit ruling that California's Online Speech Code is unconstitutional.
When you gaze at the night sky, do you wistfully ask why there isn't an entire podcast episode taking down Justice Barrett's weird and annoyingly influential concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice?
Your wait is over.
Algorithms don’t just fall from the sky.
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, host @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social deconstructs Justice Barrett’s surprisingly influential concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice. Or: Why the First Amendment protects algorithms—and AI.
podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/431...
"A good newspaper keeps you coming back—that doesn't mean you're addicted to it."
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, Clay Calvert (AEI) reviews the many problems with letting plaintiffs' lawyers demagogue social media platforms before a jury.
podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/430...
