Alex Abdo

Our Arbiters of Truth series on the online information ecosystem has been taking a bit of a hiatus—but we’re back! On today’s episode, we’re discussing the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in NetChoice v. Paxton, upholding a Texas law that binds large social media platforms to certain transparency requirements and significantly limits their ability to moderate content. The decision is truly a wild ride—so unhinged that it’s difficult to figure out where First Amendment law in this area might go next.To discuss, Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic sat down with fellow Lawfare senior editor Alan Rozenshtein and Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University—who’s come on the podcast before to discuss the case. They tried to make sense of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and chart out alternative possibilities for what good-faith jurisprudence on social media regulation might look like.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Legal expert Alex Abdo from the Knight First Amendment Institute discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Murthy v. Missouri, addressing government influence on social media content moderation, implications for online speech leading up to the 2024 election, notable dissents, and the potential impact on government-platform relations.

The podcast discusses the First Amendment implications of government outreach to social media platforms, known as jawboning. The Supreme Court seems skeptical of claims of government censorship. The conversation explores government coercion versus persuasion in content moderation and the challenges in determining permissible contacts. It also delves into the complexities of regulating terrorist speech and the implications for free speech in various legal cases.

Legal experts Alex Abdo, Clay Calvert, and David Greene discuss key tech cases before the Supreme Court, including content moderation provisions on social media platforms, restrictions on government officials' social media accounts, applying old legal doctrines to new digital platforms, and the government's role in social media content moderation.

From June 14, 2014: At the 2014 Computers, Freedom and Privacy Conference, a panel of experts debated the pros and cons of adding outside lawyers to litigation before two tribunals at the heart of the NSA surveillance controversy: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). As is well known, proceedings at those courts generally are held in secret and ex parte, with only the government arguing its position. But, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, many have called for reform, and for greater participation by non-government attorneys.The group was comprised of panelists Marc Zwillinger, an attorney with experience in surveillance matters; Alex Abdo of the American Civil Liberties Union; and Amie Stepanovich, of Access. Lawfare's Steve Vladeck moderated the discussion, which closely examined the question of whether, and how, to add more adversarial process to FISC and FISCR proceedings.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.