Corbin Barthold

@corbinkbarthold.bsky.social

3908 Followers 206 Following

Just 'cause you're hungry doesn't mean that you're lean.

TechFreedom. AI + 1A: Why the First Amendment Protects Artificial Intelligence. Corbin K. Barthold. March 2026.
Lower courts are currently considering suits challenging the President’s at-will removal of members of seven independent agencies,2 his at-will removal of members of three multimember agencies without express statutory tenure protection,3 his at-will removal of inspectors general at eight federal agencies,4 and his removal for cause of a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Trump officials looking weird.
In short, Free Speech Coalition has nothing to say about a social media ageverification and parental-consent mandate, such as H.B. 1126. In fact, Free Speech Coalition aligns perfectly with Brown. Only categories of historically unprotected speech—such as fraud, incitement, or (yes) obscenity—are outside the First Amendment. And “the obscenity exception does not,” Brown said, “cover whatever a legislature finds shocking, but only depictions of ‘sexual conduct.’” 564 U.S. at 793. So unlike in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)—a precedent, relied on heavily by Free Speech Coalition, involving material obscene to minors sold at brickand-mortar stores—California’s video-game law tried “to create a wholly new category” of unprotected speech (violent speech directed at children). 564 U.S. at 794. Allowing a legislature to do this—even for minors—would, Brown concluded, contravene “the judgment of the American people, embodied in the First Amendment, that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.” Id. at 792 (cleaned up). Creating a new category was improper in Brown, as to violence in video games, and it would be improper here, as to the content on social media. Free Speech Coalition—which dealt with a category of speech that is historically unprotected— changes nothing.
“The Fifth Circuit made a category error,” said Corbin K. Barthold, Director of Appellate Litigation at TechFreedom. “The Supreme Court recently issued a decision on material obscene to minors, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025). Because the Fifth Circuit treated this new decision as a bright shiny object, it ignored the decisions that matter. In Packingham v. North Carolina (2017), the Supreme Court confirmed that adults—even convicted sex offenders—have a broad First Amendment right to access social media. In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assoc. (2011), the Court confirmed that minors have a broad First Amendment right to access new media—including material that might be violent or disturbing. These rulings confirm that Mississippi may not use H.B. 1126 to age-gate social media.”
TechFreedom SCOTUS brief cover page in NetChoice v. Fitch.
It feels like something big is coming. If it’s not the AI takeoff, it will be a war, or a debt crisis, or a constitutional collapse, or an outburst of civil strife. Maybe several at once. Granted, this is just a vibe—but it’s hard to shake. Normal is ending . . . Normal is ending . . . “There has always been an emperor, there has always been a Rome. You cannot imagine anything else.” That’s how the historian Adrian Goldsworthy describes the outlook of a fifth-century Roman, on the cusp of the end. Such normalcy bias is natural. It is time, however, to shake it off. I do not think our civilization is about to fall. But I do think the near future is going to be very strange—something we cannot imagine.
Two angry dogs.
Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court expedite its decision on the pending Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. 85, and immediately issue the requested TRO requiring 30 days’ notice before removing a class member under the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”) from the Bluebonnet facility in the N.D. of Texa. s Late last night and early today, Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so. A copy of the notice is attached. And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon. Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses
If Trump and his administration refuse to submit to judicial authority, Judge Boasberg should refuse to supply the dignity and ritual of proper judicial proceedings. He should declare—openly, bluntly, and often—that we are no longer engaged in constitutional business as usual. As a last resort, he should dismiss any part of the case that has, through persistent executive recalcitrance, devolved into a sham lawsuit. Responding to a defendant’s misconduct with dismissal—seemingly rewarding the defendant with his desired outcome but in fact confirming that the court, locked in an unequal contest with an aspiring autocrat, has effectively been closed—would be a radical act. But we have stumbled into radical times.
Scene from the movie Clerks when customer asks for one of the "pornos in the back" to read on the toilet.