Alex Abdo
@alexabdo.bsky.social
Litigation Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University (he/him)
Chief Justice Roberts (2007): “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Justice Kavanaugh (2025): ethnicity “can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors” in immigration stops.
Justice Kavanaugh (2025): ethnicity “can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors” in immigration stops.
September 8, 2025 at 4:50 PM
Chief Justice Roberts (2007): “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
Justice Kavanaugh (2025): ethnicity “can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors” in immigration stops.
Justice Kavanaugh (2025): ethnicity “can be a 'relevant factor' when considered along with other salient factors” in immigration stops.
This amicus brief by @ccrjustice.org and Palestine Legal rightly points out that Title VI does not—and could not constitutionally—require universities to suppress criticism of Israel's policies.
static1.squarespace.com/static/54874...
static1.squarespace.com/static/54874...
May 16, 2025 at 7:14 PM
This amicus brief by @ccrjustice.org and Palestine Legal rightly points out that Title VI does not—and could not constitutionally—require universities to suppress criticism of Israel's policies.
static1.squarespace.com/static/54874...
static1.squarespace.com/static/54874...
ICE appears to have deleted its X post making clear (if we needed more proof) that it believes its mission is to stop certain "IDEAS" from crossing the border.
Here's a perma.cc link to the post:
perma.cc/2FLY-4S6J
Here's a perma.cc link to the post:
perma.cc/2FLY-4S6J
April 10, 2025 at 7:41 PM
ICE appears to have deleted its X post making clear (if we needed more proof) that it believes its mission is to stop certain "IDEAS" from crossing the border.
Here's a perma.cc link to the post:
perma.cc/2FLY-4S6J
Here's a perma.cc link to the post:
perma.cc/2FLY-4S6J
The Knight Institute (@knightcolumbia.org) joined a cross-ideological amicus brief led by the @aclu.org, in arguing that President Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP is unconstitutional.
knightcolumbia.org/cases/perkin...
knightcolumbia.org/cases/perkin...
April 3, 2025 at 2:44 PM
The Knight Institute (@knightcolumbia.org) joined a cross-ideological amicus brief led by the @aclu.org, in arguing that President Trump's executive order targeting Perkins Coie LLP is unconstitutional.
knightcolumbia.org/cases/perkin...
knightcolumbia.org/cases/perkin...
We've asked a federal court to enter a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's policy of rounding up and attempting to deport students and faculty for expressing pro-Palestinian views.
Brief here: knightcolumbia.org/documents/dc...
And here's the main First Amendment argument:
Brief here: knightcolumbia.org/documents/dc...
And here's the main First Amendment argument:
![Selection of linked legal brief:
The ideological-deportation policy violates the First Amendment because it suppresses protected expression based on its viewpoint.
As an initial matter, the speech at issue here—criticism of Israel’s policies, criticism of our own government’s policies relating to the Middle East, and advocacy of Palestinian rights—is at the very core of the First Amendment’s protection. This speech “is at the heart of current political debate among American citizens,” Ragbir v. Homan, 923 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pham v. Ragbir, 141 S. Ct. 227 (2020), and accordingly the ideological-deportation policy “trenches upon an area in which the importance of First Amendment protections is at its zenith,” id. at 70 (quoting Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421–22, 425 (1988)); see also Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991).
That the speakers here are noncitizens does not change the analysis. As explained above, Plaintiffs assert the rights of their U.S. citizen members to receive information and ideas, and also assert their own rights as U.S.-based organizations. Plaintiffs and their U.S. citizen members are unquestionably entitled to the full scope of First Amendment protections. In any case, it is wellsettled that noncitizens living in the United States “are entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment rights.” Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1063–66 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945) (“Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953) (the First and Fifth Amendments do not “acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:va3hqvyuyh4sgvsmwtrpuem5/bafkreihm7o3dcthb4kcbizysmorllhkdwnplav2msqreuzqugoobl42xfu@jpeg)
April 1, 2025 at 11:02 PM
We've asked a federal court to enter a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's policy of rounding up and attempting to deport students and faculty for expressing pro-Palestinian views.
Brief here: knightcolumbia.org/documents/dc...
And here's the main First Amendment argument:
Brief here: knightcolumbia.org/documents/dc...
And here's the main First Amendment argument:
In a sensible system, those ultimately in charge of our universities—the boards of trustees—would be selected for their commitment to academic freedom.
That's not currently the case, unfortunately, and the results are unsurprising.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
That's not currently the case, unfortunately, and the results are unsurprising.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
April 1, 2025 at 6:26 PM
In a sensible system, those ultimately in charge of our universities—the boards of trustees—would be selected for their commitment to academic freedom.
That's not currently the case, unfortunately, and the results are unsurprising.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
That's not currently the case, unfortunately, and the results are unsurprising.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Ben Franklin’s words remain prescient nearly 300 years later.
March 29, 2025 at 11:01 PM
Ben Franklin’s words remain prescient nearly 300 years later.
Federal officials shouldn't be using "disappearing messages" unless they're separately preserving these texts as required by federal records laws.
March 26, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Federal officials shouldn't be using "disappearing messages" unless they're separately preserving these texts as required by federal records laws.
This is a must-read op-ed by one of Columbia's former provosts (the highest academic position in the university).
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/o...
March 24, 2025 at 1:34 PM
This is a must-read op-ed by one of Columbia's former provosts (the highest academic position in the university).
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/o...
www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/o...
We (@knightcolumbia.org) just issued this statement urging President Biden to pardon Ravi Ragbir, an immigrant rights activist targeted by the Trump administration in retaliation for his advocacy.
Here's the statement by my colleague @ramyakrishnan.bsky.social:
knightcolumbia.org/content/knig...
Here's the statement by my colleague @ramyakrishnan.bsky.social:
knightcolumbia.org/content/knig...
January 16, 2025 at 3:53 PM
We (@knightcolumbia.org) just issued this statement urging President Biden to pardon Ravi Ragbir, an immigrant rights activist targeted by the Trump administration in retaliation for his advocacy.
Here's the statement by my colleague @ramyakrishnan.bsky.social:
knightcolumbia.org/content/knig...
Here's the statement by my colleague @ramyakrishnan.bsky.social:
knightcolumbia.org/content/knig...
In other words, users have to agree that large-scale scraping causes economic damage.
This seems like a direct response to the federal court’s skepticism that X’s damages were attributable to anything other than speech.
This seems like a direct response to the federal court’s skepticism that X’s damages were attributable to anything other than speech.
October 18, 2024 at 8:12 PM
In other words, users have to agree that large-scale scraping causes economic damage.
This seems like a direct response to the federal court’s skepticism that X’s damages were attributable to anything other than speech.
This seems like a direct response to the federal court’s skepticism that X’s damages were attributable to anything other than speech.
This is where the terms of service come in. In a new provision, X now requires users to agree that, if they violate the terms in “requesting, viewing, or accessing more than 1,000,000 posts” in a 24-hour period, they will be liable for $15,000.
x.com/en/tos
x.com/en/tos
October 18, 2024 at 8:11 PM
This is where the terms of service come in. In a new provision, X now requires users to agree that, if they violate the terms in “requesting, viewing, or accessing more than 1,000,000 posts” in a 24-hour period, they will be liable for $15,000.
x.com/en/tos
x.com/en/tos
The district court agreed, and it dismissed X’s suit in part for that reason, because X hadn’t alleged that CCDH’s advocacy amounted to false defamation.
October 18, 2024 at 8:10 PM
The district court agreed, and it dismissed X’s suit in part for that reason, because X hadn’t alleged that CCDH’s advocacy amounted to false defamation.
Specifically, X would have to show that CCDH’s speech was false and that it was made with “actual malice” (knowledge that it was false, or reckless disregard of its falsity).
October 18, 2024 at 8:10 PM
Specifically, X would have to show that CCDH’s speech was false and that it was made with “actual malice” (knowledge that it was false, or reckless disregard of its falsity).
All of the damages X sought really flowed from CCDH’s speech, not the scraping. And because speech is protected by the First Amendment, X’s suit would have to overcome that amendment’s protections.
October 18, 2024 at 8:09 PM
All of the damages X sought really flowed from CCDH’s speech, not the scraping. And because speech is protected by the First Amendment, X’s suit would have to overcome that amendment’s protections.
X wasn’t happy about this, and so it sued CCDH, alleging that CCDH violated X's terms of service by scraping public posts from the platform, and using those posts to engage in the advocacy that allegedly cost X millions of dollars in advertising revenue.
knightcolumbia.org/documents/hz...
knightcolumbia.org/documents/hz...
October 18, 2024 at 8:07 PM
X wasn’t happy about this, and so it sued CCDH, alleging that CCDH violated X's terms of service by scraping public posts from the platform, and using those posts to engage in the advocacy that allegedly cost X millions of dollars in advertising revenue.
knightcolumbia.org/documents/hz...
knightcolumbia.org/documents/hz...
In other words, according to the 3d Circuit, if the First Amendment applies to a platform's content decisions, then Section 230 doesn't.
September 11, 2024 at 8:36 PM
In other words, according to the 3d Circuit, if the First Amendment applies to a platform's content decisions, then Section 230 doesn't.
The 3d Circuit held that TikTok's algorithmic recommendations are TikTok's own speech for purposes of Section 230, because those recommendations are—as the Supreme Court said in Moody v. NetChoice—the platforms' own First Amendment protected expression.
September 11, 2024 at 8:36 PM
The 3d Circuit held that TikTok's algorithmic recommendations are TikTok's own speech for purposes of Section 230, because those recommendations are—as the Supreme Court said in Moody v. NetChoice—the platforms' own First Amendment protected expression.
Anderson then sued TikTok, arguing that the platform is responsible for the death of her child, because TikTok recommended and promoted the Blackout Challenge to minors through the platform's For You Page.
TikTok raised a § 230 defense, which the district court embraced.
TikTok raised a § 230 defense, which the district court embraced.
September 11, 2024 at 8:34 PM
Anderson then sued TikTok, arguing that the platform is responsible for the death of her child, because TikTok recommended and promoted the Blackout Challenge to minors through the platform's For You Page.
TikTok raised a § 230 defense, which the district court embraced.
TikTok raised a § 230 defense, which the district court embraced.
First, the facts of the case are tragic. The plaintiff is the mother of a child who died after she attempted a "Blackout Challenge" that appeared on her TikTok "For You Page."
Here's how the court described the tragedy that followed:
Here's how the court described the tragedy that followed:
September 11, 2024 at 8:32 PM
First, the facts of the case are tragic. The plaintiff is the mother of a child who died after she attempted a "Blackout Challenge" that appeared on her TikTok "For You Page."
Here's how the court described the tragedy that followed:
Here's how the court described the tragedy that followed:
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/opinarch/223...
Here's the opinion, and below is a short thread about it.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/223...
September 11, 2024 at 8:32 PM
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/opinarch/223...
Here's the opinion, and below is a short thread about it.
www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/223...
This is a blunderbuss approach that was obviously going to disproportionately silence critics of animal testing, even when their posts were clearly "on topic," as the court recognized was often the case.
July 31, 2024 at 5:38 PM
This is a blunderbuss approach that was obviously going to disproportionately silence critics of animal testing, even when their posts were clearly "on topic," as the court recognized was often the case.
The facts of our case are a good example. NIH claimed that posts relating to animal testing were nearly always "off topic" and so used keyword filters to block comments that used words like "PETA," "animals," "cruel," and "experiment."
July 31, 2024 at 5:37 PM
The facts of our case are a good example. NIH claimed that posts relating to animal testing were nearly always "off topic" and so used keyword filters to block comments that used words like "PETA," "animals," "cruel," and "experiment."
We’re hopeful that the courts will agree with us.
And if they do, this suit could help seed a new generation of “middleware” tools that empower us all to tailor our social media experiences to our own desires and needs.
As @mmasnick.bsky.social said:
And if they do, this suit could help seed a new generation of “middleware” tools that empower us all to tailor our social media experiences to our own desires and needs.
As @mmasnick.bsky.social said:
May 2, 2024 at 8:42 PM
We’re hopeful that the courts will agree with us.
And if they do, this suit could help seed a new generation of “middleware” tools that empower us all to tailor our social media experiences to our own desires and needs.
As @mmasnick.bsky.social said:
And if they do, this suit could help seed a new generation of “middleware” tools that empower us all to tailor our social media experiences to our own desires and needs.
As @mmasnick.bsky.social said:
The provision reflects Congress’s desire at the time it passed Section 230 to promote user control over the internet through the use of filtering tools.
Congress was pretty explicit about this:
Congress was pretty explicit about this:
May 2, 2024 at 8:42 PM
The provision reflects Congress’s desire at the time it passed Section 230 to promote user control over the internet through the use of filtering tools.
Congress was pretty explicit about this:
Congress was pretty explicit about this: