Say What You Want about the First Amendment . . .
Plus net neutrality, space lawsuits, book reviews, AI hearings, and more
First Amendment: Prof. Eric Goldman joined Corbin and Andy in an amicus brief urging the Second Circuit to affirm an order blocking a so-called hateful conduct law from taking effect. Prof. Goldman also wrote about the brief in his blog.
Ari testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration on AI and the future of our elections. He explained why new AI technology doesn’t change the First Amendment protection afforded to political speech. He was also quoted in Courthouse News, WDIO-TV, The Minnesota Reformer, and Politico Pro (paywall).
We signed onto an amicus brief with several civil liberties organizations urging the Fifth Circuit to affirm the district court’s finding that H.B.1181, a Texas law that requires age verification, violates the First Amendment. Ari has previously written about the bill on Substack and appeared on the Opening Arguments podcast.
This week, we also joined several free-speech and civil-liberties organizations in a letter to lawmakers on the significant harms to free speech and an increase in government surveillance posed by the STOP CSAM Act.
Net Neutrality: With the FCC set to release draft rules returning broadband to Title II, Berin joined a Broadband Breakfast panel to focus on the legal issue: does the FCC have the authority to decide such a major question? He predicted the FCC will lose and encouraged everyone to focus on crafting legislation consistent with the 2019 “Framework for Consensus” issued by the Internet Society after a lengthy multistakeholder dialogue that we were proud to participate in.
Berin also responded to statements by Commissioners Simington and Carr on Substack, explaining why “free speech” has always been a red herring in the net neutrality debate, despite both sides’ breathless claims of “censorship.”
Techlash: In the October print issue of Reason Magazine, Corbin took aim at Power & Progress, a tech-phobic new book arguing for more government control over innovation. The book’s treatment of antitrust policy is especially slapdash. “Does Google offer the best search engine? Is Facebook actually a monopoly? They don’t really care: Just break ‘em up.” His book review was also the Best of Reason featured article for the week!
AI: Step aside, technophobes and “AI pause” proponents. Yesterday at The Bulwark, Corbin offered some clear-headed thinking on how AI-generated writing will—but mostly won’t!—change how we think of ourselves.
On Substack, Andy addressed many of the AI-related topics discussed at last week’s FTC nomination hearing. When policing AI, he implored the Commission to apply their existing authority to discrete facts—as opposed to giant rulemakings, which are far more likely to veer into the purview of Congress.
Antitrust: Bilal filed comments on why the FTC's proposed expansion of the HSR Act’s notification and waiting period requirements would be significantly inefficient and burdensome.
On the latest episode of Rethinking Antitrust, Bilal hosted Gregory Werden to discuss whether the proposed merger guidelines promote the rule of law, and whether the proposed changes are supported by law, antitrust economics, or the antitrust agencies’ experience.
In Law & Liberty, Ethan wrote about the congressional investigation into the FTC’s communications with EU regulators. He explained why working with the EU to enforce laws that have no parallels in the United States against American companies may have been a step too far for some on the Oversight Committee.
Space: In DC Journal, Jim addressed the DOJ’s lawsuit against SpaceX. Despite claims they have violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, DOJ’s predicate that SpaceX must interview “self-identified” refugees and can’t ask them for proof of their status directly contradicts ITAR’s prohibition against discussing rocket technology with non-U.S. persons.
History: Looking to get away from the techlash for a minute (or twenty)? In City Journal, Corbin reviewed Peter Ackroyd’s six-volume History of England.
Prohibiting speech would be un-American…
…but you can see it coming from a kilometer away.