I recently heard someone say that the WSJ will fight state pressure more than, say, CBS ever did because Murdoch knows the WSJ has to be seen as a credible information source by businesses.
So much to unpack in that. But… whaddya know, here’s @wsj.com fighting and winning.
With friends, on imagining futures for the internet
Yeah, but it's rare that "engagement" is available in one form only. To that extent, we need deliberation (hidden or open) about which forms are available, and how they compare or contrast, including the collateral effects of each. Which is what these posts are calling for-not sitting in silence.
This is a great meta approach to the perils of constitutional interpretation balkin.blogspot.com/2026/03/birt...
Realmente impresionante lo de @lacriticadd.bsky.social y el especial de Habermas
La nueva y fascinante "La crítica del derecho" ha compilado una serie impresionante de obituarios de Habermas: @rgargarella.bsky.social, Sunstein, Benhabib, García Jaramillo y sus discípulos Cristina Lafont, Rainer Forst y Klaus Günther. Gracias por incluir la mía!
lacritica.ar
Reupping my paper on "The Nonpartisan Case for Court Expansion." papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
New on the Internet Policy Review, and I think also timely: policyreview.info/articles/ana...
I argue that threats of regulation is a fundamental mechanism of governance in the Internet industry (and beyond)
Technically: malardo el argumento
If you don’t want to be identified while enforcing the law pick another fucking job
How can American Courts accept masked federal officers? What is the rationale --- if any?
Escribí esta columna antes de que lo ejecutaran a Alex Pretti:
Desde Minneapolis a Boston: Reflexiones sobre el año en que el país se desmoronó
por Alicia Ely Yamin (@aliciay.bsky.social)
www.lacritica.ar/post/desde-m...
Congestion pricing is an unqualified success in NYC. It would be great to see it expanded to every city with decent public transit options. www.nytimes.com/interactive/...
Today’s 120 million euro fine against X under the Digital Services Act (DSA) will be spun as a decision against “free speech.” It’s not. (1/7) #digitalservicesact #dsa #dsa ec.europa.eu/commission/p...
Illustration of the symposium's topic
How are digital and algorithmic systems reshaping migration and asylum governance in Europe?
We have launched a new symposium on "Algorithmic Fairness for Asylum Seekers and Refugees", in collaboration with @hertiecfr.bsky.social ✨
Follow the symposium here: verfassungsblog.de/category/deb...
The ONLY?!
International human rights law in content moderation and the risks of 'misdiagnosing' its limits Stefania Di Stefano *International Law Department, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland; "Postdoctoral researcher, LISE (Cnam/CNRS), Paris, France ABSTRACT International human rights law (IHRL) has emerged as a dominant discursive framework for articulating and addressing issues raised by digital platforms. Despite its potential to offer a global language to articulate and address the questions raised by digital platforms, the THRL project' has its detractors, who argue that this normative framework is inadequate to address the unique challenges that these new actors and technologies pose. Taking content moderation as a framework of analysis, this article critically engages with the criticisms aimed at IHRL in this sphere and questions whether these critiques are diagnosing an inadequacy of IHRL in content moderation. The article argues that the limits of IHRL that have been identified originate from and reflect a traditional approach to international law, and offers an alternative diagnosis: it argues that these 'limits' are in fact symptomatic of instances of change in international law. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 November 2024; Accepted 31 July 2025 KEYWORDS International human rights law; content moderation; legal change; digital platforms; business and human rights
📖 I am excited to share the publication of my article "International human rights law in content moderation and the risks of ‘misdiagnosing’ its limits" on Transnational Legal Theory Journal!
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10....
1/
Reference for millennials www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR5x...
Why the voluntary approach to business and human rights sucks (and a few things that can be done about it).
www.tandfonline.com/eprint/KNN8T...
Congrats! An honor to share a journal edition ;)
Reuniones académicas
or maybe there's not much difference between the coercion and significant encouragement analyses? knightcolumbia.org/blog/in-jawb...
When people first hear about "jawboning" -- meaning government pressure to suppress speech through threats and other extra-legal measures, like what the FCC is doing now -- they always want to talk about "coercion" by the govt.
I've always thought this is a red herring. Current events show why. 1/
I wrote about this for @knightcolumbia.org pre-Murthy here knightcolumbia.org/blog/six-thi...
And for CELE in English and Spanish here observatoriolegislativocele.com/this-is-hard/ 8/
-cease and desist
-null and void
-aid and abet
-free and clear
-ways and means
Why is law stuff like this always two words?
These are called ‘legal doublets’ and we can once again blame the Normans.
🧵⬇️
They were private businesses adopting censorship in order to avoid government action; similar to here. The Comics Code came after Senate hearings and a moral panic over comic books corrupting youth, so while not technically government imposed, the parallels are there.
"Multiple execs felt that Kimmel had not actually said anything over the line, the two sources say, but the threat of Trump administration retaliation loomed."
They will never learn that capitulation doesn't work. Never
"In the era of Trump, censorship... very likely will target the economic infrastructure of speech rather than speech itself. But this does not make it any less a threat to the democratic values that the First Amendment is supposed to protect."
A good day to revisit @genevievelakier.bsky.social!
