Ari Cohn

@aricohn.com

50172 Followers 832 Following

First Amendment & defamation lawyer. Free Speech Counsel @TechFreedom.org (x2) Illini/music junkie/oofnik. “A snarky gay lawyer Jessica Fletcher.” Posts are my own. https://linktr.ee/aricohn

Gesnedriad earrings with ribbons on pedestal in cloche
A stack of 4 bankers boxes, the bottom 3 labeled "books" and the top simply bearing a picture of Winifred Sanderson shouting "boooooooook" in Hocus Pocus
• They can't sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I'm supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones. They know I'll call them out on it in class, so instead they walk out. I've even told them to plan ahead and pee before class, like you tell a small child before a road trip, but it has no effect. They can't make it an hour without getting their phone fix.
distributor counterparts enjoy." AOB at 30. But, putting aside, again, that that is irrelevant to constitutionally protected deepfakes, it is also precisely what Congress meant to do. Section 230 creates a uniform body of law for the Internet to avoid a patchwork of state laws that would hinder innovation and stifle the Internet's speech-enabling effects. It 'represents the approach of Congress to a problem of national and international dimension" and reflects "Congress' desire to promote
Yes guy meme
interpretation would cause. Indeed, plaintiffs' amici agree that under the interpretation plaintiffs have advanced here, the State would be powerless to regulate any content online including harmful, illegal, or dangerous content such as child sexual abuse material, advertisements for illegal goods or services, or blueprints to 3D print deadly military weapons. See Br. of Amici Curiae Found. for Individual Rights & Expression & TechFreedom at 17 ("Section 230 limits state regulation of even unprotected, illegal third-party content hosted by platforms."). Plaintiffs' interpretation of section 230(c)(l) functionally creates a regulation-free zone online, one far broader than that enjoyed even by brick-and- mortar distributors such as bookstores. But this Court has been abundantly clear: Section 230(c)(l)'s "immunity is not limitless." Calise, 103 F.4th at 739. And the
dog on stairs
Dog in big grassy field outside cabin
Martha and Snoop it's a good thing
Pink Floyd on stage during the 1972-73 Dark Side of the Moon tour
New Bluesky bullsht
Mike Lee @Based Follow The Constitution isn't a national suicide pact It doesn't compel us to encourage illegal immigration with universal birthright citizenship 24.9K Views 10:44 AM 01 Apr 26 •
I. Qualifications Defendutts first challenge Mr. Béja€s to Off« general causation opinions because is not a Clinician or "'ientist. Plaintiffs do not dispute this characterization of his qualifications and confirm that Mr. Béjar will not opine on the causes of adolescent mental health issues ot harms associated With social media. hut rather how Meta'S platforms arc unsafe. Courl agrws that Mr. Boar is unqualified to opine as to the science or medicine of causation. and his testimony may not he for that purpose. may. Offer his in field of platform design and
liberty biberty guy
The editorial tools at issue are not meaningfully separable from Meta's role as a publisher simply by labeling them "product design." Features like notifications, infinite scroll, ephemeral content, and auto-play are, by definition, editorial choices about how, when, and where to display third- party content. The means by which a platform displays, arranges, and organizes content-like a newspaper's decision to use a broadsheet format and its placement of stories-are quintessential publishing activities. See Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 716-17 (2024) (social media platform decisions about "how to display" content akin to how "[t]raditional
Declaring the target to be "design features" - such as infinite scroll or notifications - instead of speech doesn't change things. The First Amendment isn't fooled by synonyms, and what these lawsuits target is, inescapably, speech. Some allegations are aimed at content hosted by platforms that some perceive as harmful. And the ways platforms arrange, display, and choose how users consume content are editorial choices that are protected by the First Amendment. That those features might be
Mueller's death, first reported by MS Now on March 21, was also seemingly confirmed by President Donald Trump on Saturday afternoon in a Truth Social post, which reads: "Robert Mueller just died. Good, I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people! President DONALD J. TRUMP."
Opinion Your social media 'addiction' is overrated It is healthier and more accurate not to pathologize our habits. Yesterday at 7:30 a.m. EDT
Rep. Dan Crenshaw says culture of misinformation fueled his primary loss: "The truth didn't matter" The fourth-term congressman, who lost decisively to state Rep. Steve Toth, said baseless attacks about his alleged insider trading and gun stances fueled the upset. BY GABBY BIRENBAUM MARCH 6, 2026, 4:25 P.M. CENTRAL REPUBLISH SHARE
Emil Bove
However imperfect the private marketplace of ideas, here was a worse proposal—the government itself deciding when speech was imbalanced, and then coercing speakers to provide more of some views or less of others.
Throughout my entire career, I have pushed back against Big Tech's systematic censorship of conservatives and President Trump has rightly promised to return free speech to America. With that in mind, please respond to the following questions by March 4, 2026:
The result of these vast changes has been to place in a few hands the power to inform the American people and shape public opinion.[l-$] Much of the editorial opinion and commentary that is printed is that of syndicated columnists distributed nationwide and, as a result, we are told, on national and world issues there tends to be a homogeneity of editorial opinion, commentary, and interpretive analysis. The abuses of bias and manipulative reportage are, likewise, said to be the result of the vast accumulations of unreviewable power in the modern media empires. In effect, it is claimed, the public has lost any ability to respond or to contribute in a meaningful way to the debate on issues. The monopoly of the means of communication allows for little or no critical analysis of the media except in professional journals of very limited readership. "This concentration of nationwide news organizations —like other large institutions—has grown increasingly remote from and unresponsive to the popular constituencies on which they depend and which depend on them." Report of the Task Force in Twentieth Century Fund Task Force Report for a National News Council, A Free and Responsive Press 4 (1973).
American public increasingly relies on services like Apple News to provide them with information, and they deserve to have access to perspectives across the political spectrum. To deny consumers that ability through algorithmic promotion or editorial bias is a disservice to those who use your product.
100. The FTC's persistent, repeated demands for identification of NewsGuard's subscribers (and production of all communications with subscribers) is particularly troubling. Given the tactics and pronouncements of Chairman Ferguson and FCC Chairman Carr about targeting tech and media companies supposedly associated with a "censorship cartel," NewsGuard has ample grounds for concern that the FTC aims to find NewsGuard's customers to pressure them, too. Though today such improper tactics to impose informal censorship are called "jawboning," the FTC's demands are also reminiscent of the witch hunts of the McCarthy era. 101. NewsGuard has explained to FTC staff that the demands for customer lists and communications plainly violate First Amendment rights of free speech and association, but explanations of the law have fallen on deaf ears at the FTC.
4. While the FTC has jurisdiction over unfair competition in commerce and agreements that unreasonably restrain trade, 15 U.S.C. SS 1, 45, here it is brazenly using its power not for any issue concerning trade or commerce, but rather to censor speech. And it has done so simply out of disagreement with NewsGuard's First Amendment-protected journalistic judgments about the reliability of news sources. 5. The FTC has pursued its campaign because Chairman Ferguson does not like NewsGuard's news ratings, which he views as biased against conselwative publications. That is wrong NewsGuard's ratings and journalism about news sources are non-partisan and based on fully disclosed journalistic criteria. But the FTC's actions are plainly unconstitutional even if that were not the case. The First Amendment does not allow the government to pick and choose speech based on what it likes or dislikes. In our constitutional scheme the government's legitimate role is not to decide "what counts as the right balance of private expression to 'un-bias' what it thinks [is] biased." Moody, 603 U.S. at 719.
Chairman Ferguson characterizes discrimination against certain views or ideas—the core editorial function of content moderation—as inherently a consumer harm.ii To remedy that harm, he proposes compelling platforms to "protect freedom of speech," i.e., forbid them from engaging in such "discrimination." The conclusion is inescapable: through the RPC and subsequent agency actions, his goal is to further the same government interest in "balancing" the speech ecosystem that the Moody Court described as "not valid, let alone substantial. "12 Ferguson believes social media platforms should primarily be devoted to existing as an unfettered "digital marketplace of ideas." As a normative matter, FIRE agrees: it is preferable for speech platforms to remain as open as possible. But this is not for the government to decide. Whatever the FTC thinks social media
In 2004, the political advocacy groups MoveOn and Common Cause asked the FTC to act against Fox News' use of the "Fair and Balanced" slogan, arguing that it was false and misleading. Then-FTC Chair Tim Muris appropriately replied, "There is no wayto evaluate this petition without evaluating the content of the news at issue. That is a task the First Amendment leaves to the American people, not a government agency."
NATIONAL NEWS Suspended Ford worker who heckled Trump gets $800K in donations by: Taylor Delandro, Jeremy Tanner Posted: Jan 18, 2026 / 11:05 AM CST Updated: Jan 18, 2026 / 11:05 AM CST