The beauty of the American Chopper meme is that it forces you to crystallize the essence of both sides of an argument and engage with the best versions of both sides. Here's one on an expansive reading of the First Amendment.

I’ve had several students tell me that law school is the first time they were ever challenged educationally. One even told me it’s the first time she ever had to fully read. Prior to that, everything was just placed on slides for her. This is dire. We are raising generations of students who not only haven’t been elevated in their critical thinking skills but may not even realize the joys of true intellectual engagement, which requires effort. The solutions are simple, although they are not easy to implement. Stop the failed policy of meeting students where they are, and start truly caring about students through higher expectations. Assign more homework, so students have to develop the skill of teaching themselves to learn. Stop spoon-feeding material on slides and make students do some work to make connections or learn. Guide them through true understanding, which is more difficult than doing less and just telling them exactly what they need to know and can memorize it. Students need more reading and harder reading and less technology. Many experts in education have failed us with their set of ideological values. It is truly dire and perhaps has been for a while. Education needs a diametrically different approach. I watch my students grow tremendously when assigned reading above their level coupled with difficult subject material and required outside reading. This can be scaled down for any individual grade, and each individual student should be elevated above their starting point. Students need to do more analytical writing even though it is less “fun” than creative writing. Difficult learning can also be fun with the right educators who actually care about the joys of intellectual engagement, rigorous thinking, and the beauty of math and reading. This approach has proven successful because we can’t race to the bottom and cater to those who want to put in the least effort. Our teachers cannot base their popularity on giving students exactly what they want or lowering their expectations. Our students have to pass a competency exam, and they generally do. Our methods should be emulated far more. As it is, we are often doing much of the teaching of difficult reading, writing, and thinking once students get here. I am so concerned for the vast majority of students who do not have the opportunity to get this education in law school.

I told some Torts students that I would write a Torts poem, so here is my ode to proximate cause in the form of a sonnet. I tried! An Ode to Proximate Cause Proximate cause will be agreeable, And a judge will not say to plaintiff “tsk tsk,” If the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable Because the harm is within the scope of the risk. Risk refers to breach, of course, so look to the breach. What is the act that made plaintiff careless? That will tell you proximate cause’s reach: A dropped banana peel shouldn't be responsible for a fire that leaves your cat hairless. You need duty too, and but for causation, First plaintiff must convince a jury of breach. If she convinces the jury of factual and legal cause, there will be elation, As money for her damages will be within reach. Proximate cause, you keep liability reasonable, Just like the sun keeps our weather seasonable

I’ve been thinking about why Elizabeth Holmes didn’t just plead the Fifth. She was deposed before the SEC, and she testified at her own criminal trial - she could have pled the Fifth at either. Much of the time, testifying like this is a mistake, especially at the criminal trial where the feds have to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe this was her best chance at exonerating herself, and likely there was too much evidence of fraud for this to have made a difference either way, but I don’t think testifying helped her. It reaffirms that she either genuinely does not think she was wrong or she thought she could mastermind everyone with her testimony, which are the two themes presented for her in #YouCanSeeEverything as well.

Looking at what's happening in various parts of the world, I think we in the U.S. have forgotten that what makes us great are the principles that were revolutionary a few hundred years ago. No no other place executes these principles as well -- although we are by no means perfect: Freedom of speech (with a stark line between protected speech and unprotected, criminalizable conduct), freedom of religion, anti-establishment of religion, property rights, due process, fair administration of the laws. Both the left and the right seek, in their own ways and sometimes in the same way, to chip away at these principles to force their vision of the good on others, and it is generally a step in the wrong direction.

Potential interpretations of Elizabeth Holmes gleaned from You Can See Everything - factoring in the doc’s incredible Abbott and Costello scene. 1. Holmes is misunderstood. She believes her own righteousness even though there is overwhelming evidence that she told concrete, material lies to investors that harmed patients. It may be impossible for many (myself included) to relate to someone who lies and yet feels no accountability. She was driven by a pure purpose. She is different and her character is worth exploring and trying to understand because the assumptions about her are wrong. But also, she did commit fraud whether she accepts that or rationalizes it away or whatever happened in her mind. In this interpretation, she doesn’t understand the Abbott and Costello routine and actually never understands it, even after it is explained to her. She just pretends to get it after Nathan explains it to her (I have seen that look when people don’t understand things but claim to follow.) 2. Holmes is a self aware mastermind who is cognizant of her own lies and feigns naïveté in order to manipulate people. In this account, she understood the Abbott and Costello routine, understood its import, and therefore pretended not to get it. Her purposeful evasiveness is shown many times throughout the movie. 3. Holmes is a nice Mom who is continually controlled by the people around her. She’s actually the kind of pure of heart person that Billy describes. The justice system failed her. Here, she doesn’t get the routine initially but maybe gets it after it’s explained to her? I think the truth is most likely 1 and least likely 3, but reasonable minds can differ. That’s what is so great about #YouCanSeeEverything I wish the movie would have included more about the actual facts of the case so people can make up their minds based on more accurate information, but then some of the important, more universal themes of the doc would be lost.

I may see the outstanding Nathan Fielder doc again, because, despite the film's postmodern themes, I think Fielder wants you to figure out the truth. My take on You Can See Everything, as a 1st A prof who believes in both truth and complexity. inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/1…

A quick and objective primer on the law surrounding search warrants and malicious/selective prosecutions in light of the search on Representative Ilhan Omar's home. inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/1…

"Because we live in a free society, we have the privilege of discussing these issues publicly. I hope we continue to do so.  Nidal Hasan’s murders have been classified as an act of terrorism, and he is described as self-radicalized.  I fear for what it says about us if we use the tactics of those he admired to carry out his legal death sentence."

This blog discusses the legal and moral arguments for and against the broadcast execution of Nidal Hasan, including a bit of the context for public executions. I express my own opinion but want readers to form their own conclusions. inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/1…

There is an interesting study on how populist attitudes (us v. them, pure people v. rich elite) are correlated with lack of cognitive reflection (deeper thinking beyond initial gut impulse). sciencedirect.com/science/ar… Some thoughts: I have long thought that the literacy crisis contributes to extremism on many political issues. Education could be doing a much better job teaching results-neutral critical thinking and compelling more long form, difficult reading (which teaches both logical reasoning and empathy for various perspectives and flawed characters.) It is manifesting in very problematic ways in our political discourse. Our current vision of education and the mission of schools and universities needs serious re-examination in light of its failings.

This is a good example of why some aspects of artificial intelligence require free speech protections against gvt censorship — from both the right and the left. Read my article Artificial Intelligence as Speech! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…

My article, Artificial Intelligence as Speech, is forthcoming in First Amendment Law Review. The article argues that the 1st A can be adapted to ensure that the gvt cannot alter how we communicate while allowing restrictions on the conduct aspects of AI. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.…

Yesterday, my Lyft driver and I were discussing ancestry, because he is Ethiopian and, according to 23 and Me, I am 99.9 percent Ashkenazi Jewish and .1 percent Ethiopian and Eritrean. He told me that, in ancient times, Queen Sheba (on some accounts to be from Ethiopia and Eritrea) had a baby with King Solomon in Israel. It is a miracle to be alive. I am so sorry to those who are not. Our lives should honor them.

I have a new blog series - an analysis of hot topics in free speech. For September, I analyzed Trump's banning of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House and the Macklemore/Ed Sheeran debacle. (Feel free to suggest topics for future months.) inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/0…

Hasan Piker has a good chance of defending against a $150 million lawsuit by citing the Constitution he said he uses as toilet paper. inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/0…

"The line between speech and violence is the line of freedom."

Friends sometimes remark that I combine a bunch of controversial topics into one think piece. I think this one strings a number of important (and sacred) topics together in a coherent way. inacrowdedtheater.com/2026/0…