Beyond the Editorial Analogy: First Amendment Protections for Platform Content Moderation After Moddy v. NetChoice

This Article examines the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Moody v. NetChoice and its implications for social media platform regulation. In Moody, which addressed state laws requiring platforms to host certain content, the Court issued a complex set of opinions that left the scope of platforms’ First Amendment rights uncertain. On the procedural question of how such laws may be challenged, the Court provided a clear holding: it rejected facial challenges to broad content-moderation laws, instead requiring case-by-case analysis of how specific regulations affect different platform features—a shift that undermines the tech industry’s longstanding litigation strategy. But on the substantive question of whether such laws are constitutional, the path forward remains murky. While Justice Kagan’s majority opinion articulated a framework favoring robust protection for content moderation, five Justices, across three separate concurrences, expressed skepticism toward broad editorial rights for platforms, and much of the majority\u27s First Amendment discussion may ultimately prove to be nonbinding dicta. Given this uncertainty, we argue that courts applying Moody should move beyond abstract questions about whether platforms qualify as “editors” and instead examine how specific regulations concretely affect the speech interests of platforms, users, and society. Building on this framework, we analyze the specific features that made the Texas and Florida laws at issue in the case constitutionally problematic and propose alternative regulatory approaches—such as content-neutral design requirements, procedural protections, and narrowly targeted access rights—that could withstand First Amendment scrutiny while advancing legitimate governmental interests in ensuring broad public access to the digital public sphere

Math and Aftermath: Impacts of Unbundling a Large Journal Package on Researcher Perceptions and Behavior

This study seeks to understand the effects on researchers’ work at a large research university in the wake of the university library’s shift from a near-comprehensive journals package with a single, large publisher to a selective list of individual journal subscriptions. Analyzing historical journal usage, along with turnaway and interlibrary loan trends from the years following the changes, the authors made use of structured interviews with local researchers to bring context and meaning to the quantitative data. The interviews highlighted researchers’ strategies for gaining access to literature in their fields to which the library does not subscribe, and revealed assumptions about timeliness of access, as well as relationships between library subscriptions and local researchers’ publishing behavior

Colombia, COVID-19, and the Colonial Trap: Reflections on the Politics of Knowledge Production

The COVID-19 pandemic has made historical and contemporary colonial relationships between and within states more fraught. This complexity is apparent within the research process itself, adding a new dimension to debates on positionality and the politics of knowledge production. Drawing on critical approaches to International Relations, and in dialogue with an emerging literature on the implications of the pandemic for knowledge decolonization, we reflect on our experience as scholars from the UK/Ireland researching colonial legacy and Transitional Justice in Colombia. The aim of this autoethnographic article is to suggest how the COVID-19 pandemic affected inequalities between researchers based in Europe and participants in Latin America. Our findings are mixed. While Covid-related funding cuts undermined equity within relationships, the virtual field offered an opportunity to cultivate cooperation between researcher and participant and re-think issues of ethics, voice, and the research agenda itself. Finally, El Maestro Covid taught us valuable lessons on the colonial trap inherent in our endeavors

Stakeholder Governance as Governance by Stakeholders

Much debate within corporate governance today centers on the proper role of corporate stakeholders, such as employees, customers, creditors, suppliers, and local communities. Scholars and reformers advocate for greater attention to stakeholder interests under a variety of banners, including ESG, sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and stakeholder governance. So far, that advocacy focuses almost entirely on arguing for an expanded understanding of corporate purpose. It argues that corporate governance should be for various stakeholders, not shareholders alone. This Article examines and approves of that broadened understanding of corporate purpose. However, it argues that we should understand stakeholder governance as extending well beyond purpose to embracing governance by stakeholders. Purpose-based governance longingly hopes that either shareholders, or the directors elected by shareholders, will vigorously promote the interests of other stakeholders. But if we truly want companies to promote stakeholder interests, we should empower stakeholders within those companies. Such stakeholder governance would create some costs along with many benefits. However, we can structure stakeholder governance to emphasize the benefits while keeping the costs under control. Employees should be empowered via board representation, works councils, and/or unions. Other stakeholders can be less fully empowered through councils, advisory at first, and potentially given power to nominate or even elect directors

Raz y Bulygin sobre teoría del derecho y enunciados jurídicos

El presente texto aborda dos intercambios entre Eugenio Bulygin y Joseph Raz. El primer intercambio apareció en el libro Una discusión sobre la teoría del derecho, en el que Bulygin, al igual que Robert Alexy, comentan el artículo de Raz “¿Puede haber una teoría del derecho?”. El segundo intercambio se produce del ensayo de Bulygin, “Enunciados Jurídicos y Positivismo: Una Respuesta a Joseph Raz” (1981), que fue una respuesta a un artículo de Raz, “The Purity of the Pure Theory”, publicado en 1981. Palabras clave: Teoría del derecho, Enunciados jurídicos, Positivismo, Teoría pura The present paper addresses two exchanges between Eugenio Bulygin and Joseph Raz. The first exchange appeared in the book Una discusión sobre la teoría del derecho, in which Bulygin, like Robert Alexy, commented on an article by Raz “Can There Be a Theory of Law?”. The second exchange takes place in Bulygin’s essay, “Enunciados Jurídicos y Positivismo: Una Respuesta a Joseph Raz” (1981), which was a response to an article by Raz, “The Purity of the Pure Theory,” published in 1981. Key words: Legal theory, Legal statements, Positivism, Pure Theor

Opportunistic Breach of Contract

Law and economics scholarship has traditionally analyzed efficient breach cases monolithically. By grouping efficient breach cases together, this literature treats the subjective motives and the distributive effects of the breach as immaterial. The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment introduced a distinction based on the intent and the effects of the breach, allowing courts to use disgorgement remedies in cases of ‘opportunistic’ breach of contract (i.e., ‘deliberate and profitable’ breaches). In this article, we evaluate this approach, focusing on the effects of disgorgement remedies on allocative and productive efficiency, information-forcing and competitive effects, and restraint of breach-searching incentives. We show that, even from a purely consequentialist perspective, disgorgement remedies may be normatively warranted, especially when involving sellers’ breach. Recent experimental evidence revealed that the preferences and reactions of ordinary people are in line with our evaluation of the effects of opportunistic breach