11 July 2025
Laboratories of Authoritarianism
In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded. Continue reading >>
0 
13 June 2025
Troops in L.A.
This past weekend, President Donald Trump issued a presidential memorandum that federalized National Guard troops and deployed those troops alongside active-duty marines in response to protests against his aggressive immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles. While framed as a response to violence, the order also addresses peaceful protest. The decision to send military forces against civilians engaged in protected First Amendment activity marks a dangerous escalation, raising serious legal and constitutional concerns. Continue reading >>
0
14 May 2025
The Dark Side of Humor
On March 3, 2025, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) released its final judgment in Yevstifeyev and others v. Russia. The decision concerned two applications against the Russian government, claiming that the domestic authorities had failed to comply with their obligation to “respond adequately” to homophobic messages and thus violated the applicants’ right to private life under Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention. This ruling offers an excellent illustration of the Court’s flawed understanding of the role of humor and satire in the protection of free speech. Continue reading >>
0
25 March 2025
The Death Knell for American Free Speech Tradition
In a case that has received global attention and reproach, Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States and recent graduate of Columbia University (another target of the Trump administration’s ire), was arrested on 8 March by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in front of his apartment in New York and subsequently transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana. In this blog post, my aim is to show that the case of Mr. Khalil implicates perhaps the most sacrosanct of American constitutional rights: free speech. Continue reading >>
0
04 March 2025
Judicial Paternalism and Free Speech in India
The Indian Supreme Court has recently decided two cases pertaining to the speech acts of two different individuals—a podcaster and a legislator of the Legislative Council of the State of Bihar. In both cases, the Court chose to reprimand the individuals for their ‘indecent’ and ‘unparliamentary conduct’ and also sanctioned punishments upon them, without any a priori determination of whether their speech acts, in any manner, violated the limits of the right to free speech as guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The reprimand and the sanction, I argue, emerged from the Court’s false belief that it is tasked to school the citizens on the appropriate and correct ways of using their speech rights. Continue reading >>
0
06 February 2025
Ceci n’est pas un Ban?
On 19th January 2025, the ‘Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act’ became operative in the USA in respect of TikTok, routinely (but somehow deceptively) referred to as ‘TikTok ban’. I will not deal in detail here with the saga (which readers of this blog are already familiar with), but with the misalignment between legal form and political narrative: A vaguely formulated statute became a symbolical proxy for principled confrontation over the underlying values. Continue reading >>
0
08 October 2024
The Bombay High Court Dismisses the Ministry of Truth
In 2023, the Indian central government established a Fact Check Unit to monitor online content related to ‘any business of the Central Government’ and order the takedown of any information that it considered ‘fake or false or misleading.’ The FCU itself was envisaged as a public body and a part of the central government. As it seems, the Indian central government wanted to depart from existing liability rules protecting platforms in all cases of online criticism of the Indian State. As the FCU would be the last arbiter of what could be said online in India about the central government, the amendment instituted what could be called a ‘Ministry of Truth’. This was struck down by the Bombay High Court. Continue reading >>06 September 2024
Why Institutional Reputation Matters
Mexico is about to adopt a constitutional amendment to reform the judicial branch. While framed as an attempt to restore the legitimacy and independence of the judiciary, it is, in reality, aimed at capturing the judiciary. In this blogpost, I discuss a key strategy that enabled this judicial overhaul: the President’s persistent and systematic defamatory attacks on the judiciary. I argue that to facing the threat of institutional defamation, we must recognize the importance of the right to reputation. Continue reading >>12 July 2024
Prison for Fake News
In Cyprus, a new legislative proposal introduces a prison sentence of up to one year and/or a fine of up to EUR 3,000. I argue that criminally punishing fake news is absolutely horrifying for free speech, for media pluralism, and for democracy. Criminalizing fake news has a “chilling effect” and it causes a self-censorship by media, civil society organizations, and average citizens. Moreover, the concept of fake news is highly ambiguous and its criminalization is counterproductive as it is not reducing the problematic content but “often draws more attention to it.” Continue reading >>11 July 2024
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address. Continue reading >>
0