Evelyn Douek
LightNews LightNews
banner
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Evelyn Douek
@evelyndouek.bsky.social
7K followers 360 following 220 posts
Assistant Professor, Stanford Law School. Aussie struggling with °F & online speech stuff.
Posts Replies Media Videos
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Nothing says "free speech" like "you shall abstain from speech relating to societal and political events"
Screenshot from proposed University compact reading: 4 - INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY Signatories shall maintain institutional neutrality at all levels of their administration. This requires policies that all university employees, in their capacity as university representatives, will abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university. Policies requiring institutional neutrality must apply with equal force to all of the university’s academic units, including all colleges, faculties, schools, departments, programs, centers, and institutes
October 2, 2025 at 7:12 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
A good and timely reminder at the end of the Harvard opinion of why this is not just about Harvard, and it's not just about antisemitism.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The First Amendment is important and the right to free speech must be zealously guarded. Free speech has always been a hallmark of our democracy. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that efforts to educate people, change minds, and foster tolerance all benefit from more open communication, not less. As Justice Brandeis wrote in the seminal case of Whitney v. California, “[i]f there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence,” 274 U.S. 357, 377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring), or, in this case, the forced adoption of a political orthodoxy. As pertains to this case, it is important to recognize and remember that 81 if speech can be curtailed in the name of the Jewish people today, then just as easily the speech of the Jews (and anyone else) can be curtailed when the political winds change direction
September 3, 2025 at 8:51 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Although tbh, this hypothesis occurred to me too... So let's see how this shakes out over time
Screenshot from the article reading: It is unclear exactly how many posts commenting on debates of public interest are being restricted. X and Reddit did not respond to a request for comment. But Prof Livingstone noted that it was "possible that the companies are over-blocking to undermine the Act".
August 2, 2025 at 4:59 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Real over-achievers in thumbing their nose at the First Amendment: New State Dept social media vetting for visa applicants will take *lack* of online presence to be suspicious, so it's managing to both compel and chill speech at the same time

www.politico.com/news/2025/05...
State Department leadership wants consular officers to consider “whether the lack of any online presence, or having social media accounts restricted to ‘private’ or with limited visibility, may be reflective of evasiveness and call into question the applicant’s credibility.” The cable also instructs consular officers to inform applicants with private social media accounts that they could be viewed as evading vetting and request they make their accounts public while the Fraud Prevention Unit reviews their case.
May 30, 2025 at 3:16 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
I thought I remembered something...
Quote from Alvarez v. United States highlighting: "Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth. See G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) (Centennial ed. 2003). Were this law to be sustained, there could be an endless list of subjects the National Government or the States could single out. "
April 21, 2025 at 3:04 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Just a federal official with significant regulatory power implying that news coverage on a key political issue violates the law because it doesn't comport with the Administration's version of the "truth." I wonder if there's anything in the First Amendment cases about this...?
Picture of Brendan Carr tweet reading: "Comcast outlets spent days misleading the American public—implying that Abrego Garcia was merely a law abiding U.S. citizen, just a regular “Maryland man.” When the truth comes out, they ignore it. Comcast knows that federal law requires its licensed operations to serve the public interest. News distortion doesn’t cut it. Abrego Garcia came to America illegally from El Salvador, was validated as a member of the violent MS13 gang—a transnational criminal organization—and was denied bond by an immigration court for failure to show he would not pose a danger to others. Why does Comcast ignore these facts of obvious public interest?"
April 21, 2025 at 3:01 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
"The data analytic tools now being used to scour social media [of non-citizens for grounds to deport them] were enhanced during the Biden administration"

If only we could've foreseen that a system designed to surveil protected speech could be prone to abuse!

www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...
The data analytic tools now being used to scour social media were enhanced during the Biden administration, a former Biden administration DHS official said. But to use them to search social media of nonviolent students, the official said, is different from what the previous administration intended.
April 10, 2025 at 5:34 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
It's going very well in the other place
Image of replies on x.com saying "Correct. Guests. FAFO."
April 2, 2025 at 2:40 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Here's the language from Holmes' dissent, which is so celebrated in this country's free speech tradition: "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market ... That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution."
the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.
March 31, 2025 at 11:26 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Re-reading Abrams v. United States for the gazillionth time to prep for class tomorrow and I had overlooked this before, or forgotten it: perhaps the most famous free speech opinion ever, the birth of the "marketplace of ideas" metaphor was... written about non-citizens.
Screenshot of Abrams opinion: "All of the five defendants were born in Russia. They were intelligent, had considerable schooling, and at the time they were arrested they had lived in the United States terms varying from five to ten years, but *none of them had applied for naturalization.*" (highlighted)
March 31, 2025 at 11:18 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
I'm sorry, I can't keep up. Are Universities supposed to be considering these things in admissions or not?

www.wsj.com/us-news/educ...
Columbia noted they have “identified a recent downturn in both Jewish and African-American enrollment, and we will closely examine those issues.”
March 21, 2025 at 8:24 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Holy moly Columbia's new "Anti-Doxing and Online Harassment Policy" is broad and ambiguous. One might even say chilling.

No doubt all uncertainty will be cleared up by what I'm sure will be a very transparent enforcement process.
March 12, 2025 at 9:13 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
a hilarious and unexpected byproduct of appearing on last week tonight for 5 seconds.

i guess i have to go into tv now to raise that score?
February 26, 2025 at 3:26 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
One thing abt Meta's changes I haven't seen as much commentary on is the process. Meta spent years being all "heavy is the head that wears the crown" and setting up the oversight board, citizens assemblies, consultation etc to legitimate decisionmaking.

Psych! It is and will always be "Mark says".
January 13, 2025 at 7:20 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Gives Meta spokespeople something to retweet though, so everyone can pat themselves on the back
January 7, 2025 at 4:18 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
This section of Roberts' Year End report seems like... very bad news for TikTok

www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/y...
January 1, 2025 at 4:50 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
When you push on it, no one has really spelled out exactly how this threat will manifest in a way that is compelling, let alone in a way that is consistent with the First Amendment
December 12, 2024 at 3:03 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Ah yes, President Trump's carefully considered efforts to address the national security problems associated with TikTok. That's definitely my recollection too.
December 6, 2024 at 4:32 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
The original for comparison
December 6, 2024 at 4:26 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
A re-reading of the DC Circuit's opinion in the TikTok case as applied to Texas' social media law aimed at preventing "viewpoint discrimination." The idea that this is not content-based is ludicrous.
December 6, 2024 at 4:25 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
huh... does he have different views about government <> platform cooperation now? to be fair, many people are probably rethinking their views on this right now...

www.bloomberglaw.com/bloomberglaw...
November 15, 2024 at 5:26 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
Great piece by @jameeljaffer.bsky.social. People often assume the First Amendment is fixed and immutable, but its history shows it is anything but. Which means our work is cut out for us.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
The first amendment has never been static – not for the past 100 years, anyway – but now it’s likely to evolve more rapidly, for better or worse. Even without Trump as president, the supreme court in the next few years would have to deal with consequential free speech questions relating to social media surveillance, artificial intelligence, online censorship, the government’s authority to access privately held data and the right of citizens to use foreign technology platforms.
November 14, 2024 at 7:32 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
oh no bluesky is over
Email from Scholastica saying "Scholastica is now on Mastodon!"
December 14, 2023 at 3:36 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
oh my, almost enough to tempt me into posting more again, @zoeschiffer.bsky.social!
Excerpt from a newsletter: "Get ready for a flood of new regulations around the world. — Evelyn Douek, assistant professor of law at Stanford Law School, co-host of the Moderated Content podcast, and someone who was really good at tweeting back in the day. "
December 1, 2023 at 6:30 PM
evelyndouek.bsky.social
the shampoo has weighed in on today's debate about whether Twitter conversation is "healthier" than ever before or.. not
July 19, 2023 at 9:44 PM