Litigation Director, @knightcolumbia. Formerly w/ @ACLU. Views here are my own. he/him. PGP: https://xitter.cf/t.co/ZltwuSDLj3. @alexabdo@mastodon.social.
Joined February 2012
- Tweets4.6K
- Following965
- Followers6.8K
- Likes1.1K
Alex Abdo retweeted
“This is a frontal assault on higher education.”
Free speech advocate @AlexanderAbdo warns that the Trump administration's demands of Columbia University pose a serious threat to academic freedom:
Alex Abdo retweeted
It took almost two years, but together with @knightcolumbia we have agreed to a settlement in our lawsuit against the Biden Admin that we believe provides vital First Amendment protections for all Americans & an important limitation on Executive power. 1/
nytimes.com/2024/11/12/us/fo…
Alex Abdo retweeted
Knight Institute Says X’s New Terms of Service Will Stifle Independent Research. See our full statement from @AlexanderAbdo below & at the link. knightcolumbia.org/content/k…
Alex Abdo retweeted
It’s a small minority of students who embrace this message, but even a small minority is too many. Endorsing attacks on civilians is a moral mistake and a tactical one, too. 1/x
Alex Abdo retweeted
JUST FILED: FIRE joins the @ACLU, @ACLU_MD, and @knightcolumbia on a brief supporting a lawsuit filed by Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Maryland, pushing back on UMD’s unconstitutional ban on student-led expressive events scheduled for Oct. 7.
Alex Abdo retweeted
The DC Circuit is going to hear argument tomorrow in TikTok v. Garland, a First Amendment challenge to the federal TikTok ban. IMO the ban reprises a form of censorship that history has already discredited, and the court should strike it down. /1
I finally read the 3d Cir. decision in Anderson v. TikTok about the scope of Section 230 immunity, and I find it impossible to square with the entire purpose of that statute.
Here's the opinion, and below is a short thread about it.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinar…
But Congress enacted § 230 to *override* those decisions.
And so it seems quite wrong for the 3d Circuit to rely on the logic that led to the enactment of § 230 to deny § 230 protection.
To be clear, I think that platforms *can* sometimes be held liable for their amplification decisions. But I think a plaintiff needs to allege more than mere amplification to get past § 230 (as we argued here: knightcolumbia.org/documents…).
Recent college grads and early career professionals, come work with us at @knightcolumbia! We're hiring for a paralegal to help us with an exciting docket of cases at the intersection of free speech and new technology.
knightcolumbia.org/page/para…
A purely historical approach to the First Amendment seems especially problematic. For its first 150 years, it was interpreted it to allow the prosecution of dissidents.
That didn't change b/c of history, but b/c of judicial analysis of what free speech logically must protect.
This Post is from an account that no longer exists. Learn more
This is a thoughtful (and, in my opinion, correct) decision from Meta's Oversight Board about social media posts that use the phrase "from the river to the sea."
oversightboard.com/decision/…
