• Internet companies aren’t the government and their actions don’t violate the First Amendment – but if we want a liberal society they should think hard before yanking connectivity from groups they politically despise [John Samples, Cato]
• An argument you may not have heard before: “The neurodiversity case for free speech” [Geoffrey Miller, Quillette]
• Prof. Joel Gora: over past decade “the Roberts Supreme Court may well have been the most speech-protective court in a generation, if not in our history.” [Steve Chapman]
• “Respecting Rights? Measuring the world’s blasphemy laws” [Joelle Fiss and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom report via Eugene Volokh]
• Michigan man appeals jury tampering conviction over “fully informed jury” leafleting outside courthouse [Jacob Sullum]
• New law school buzz over proposals to ban “atrocity speech,” seemingly defined to include speech that might touch off future atrocity [David J. Simon, Opinio Juris on Gregory Gordon’s Atrocity Speech Law] Revealingly, author says opposition to idea “is primarily of American origin — owing to a rabid free speech ethos flowing from libertarian impulses” [Gregory Gordon at Opinio Juris]

Filed under: free speech, international human rights, jury nullification, social media