Snake Oil Speech

Snake oil is dangerous only by way of the claims that are made about its healing powers. It is a speech problem, and its remedy involves speech restrictions. But First Amendment doctrine has struggled to find equilibrium in the balance between free speech and the reduction of junk science. Regulation requires the government to take an authoritative position about which factual claims are “true” and “false,” which is anathema to open inquiry. As a result, free speech jurisprudence overprotects factual claims made in public discourse out of respect for any remote possibility that the scientific consensus might be wrong but has given wide latitude to state actors to regulate all but the most accepted and well supported claims in advertising. This Article shows that the interests in speech and safety alike would be better served by switching from the truth-oriented set of rules that apply today to a risk orientation. While risk and falsity are obviously related, they are not substitutes. The transition to a risk analysis would better match longstanding First Amendment traditions that permit state interests in avoiding harm to outweigh speech interests while maintaining epistemic modesty. The practical effect of this shift would be to permit more regulation in public discourse and less in commercial speech

The Quiet Resignation: Why Do So Many Female Lawyers Abandon Their Careers?

Thirty percent of female lawyers leave their careers. The same is true for female doctors. Over time, an increasing number of married professionals have recreated traditional gender roles, and society has lost a tremendous amount of training and well-honed talent as a result. Neither workplace discrimination nor family obligations can fully and satisfactorily explain the trend. Both of those theories assume that women take a more dependent and vulnerable position in the household because of constraints, but in one important respect, men are more constrained than women, and they are better off for it: to maintain social status, men have to work. Women do not. This Article advances a theory and corroborating evidence that the cultural acceptance of female underemployment is a privilege in the abstract, but a curse in practice. Even under the best conditions, the early stages of professional careers involve mistakes, mismatches, and disappointments. An opportunity to escape the stress of the public sphere by focusing on the family may have great appeal in the short run even though the long-run consequences are severe. Asymmetric cultural acceptance creates an easy off-ramp for females, to nearly everybody’s detriment

Tort Liability for Physical Harm to Police Arising From Protest: Common-Law Principles for a Politicized World

When police officers bring tort suits for physical harms suffered during protest, courts must navigate two critically important sets of values—on the one hand, protesters’ rights to free speech and assembly, and on the other, the value of officers’ lives, health, and rights of redress. This year courts, including the United States Supreme Court, must decide who, if anyone, can be held accountable for severe physical harms suffered by police called upon to respond to protest. Two highly visible cases well illustrate the trend. In one, United States Capitol Police officers were injured on January 6, 2021, during organized attempts to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election. In the other, a Baton Rouge police officer suffered traumatic brain injury when he was hit by an object thrown by an unidentified protester during a Black Lives Matter protest that sought to block a highway in front of police headquarters.In this article, Professors Bublick and Bambauer argue that courts analyzing common-law liability claims for physical injuries suffered by police in the highly political circumstances of protest, would be well-advised to work through a list of content-neutral questions. Such a list could help courts maximize states’ legitimate interests in officer safety, while minimizing impacts on protestors’ legitimate First Amendment activity. We juxtapose these political contexts to create an analytical framework that recognizes the threats involved, to both speech and safety, without as great a risk of ideological distortion. Courts in both the January 6th case and the Black Lives Matter case have failed to accommodate both physical safety interests and First Amendment issues

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment precedent for internet platforms. We identify the similarities between social media platforms and more traditional venues for speech (like mail, malls, and television) but ultimately conclude there are critical differences that break the analogies. We then compare the role of social media platforms to basic internet service providers to better understand how the line between speech participants and mere conduits should be drawn in an online context. We find that First Amendment caselaw and the reasoning that flows through it would categorize platforms like Twitter and Facebook as speech participants. Next, we consider whether public perception of platforms standing in the role of a “public square” should significantly alter the First Amendment protections afforded to platforms, arguing that it should not. Finally, we argue that online platforms are their own free speech creature that deserve strong protection from government intervention in hosting and curation choices. However, they may be good targets for transparency requirements

Fool\u27s Gold: An Illustrated Critique of Differential Privacy

Differential privacy has taken the privacy community by storm. Computer scientists developed this technique to allow researchers to submit queries to databases without being able to glean sensitive information about the individuals described in the data. Legal scholars champion differential privacy as a practical solution to the competing interests in research and confidentiality, and policymakers are poised to adopt it as the gold standard for data privacy. It would be a disastrous mistake. This Article provides an illustrated guide to the virtues and pitfalls of differential privacy. While the technique is suitable for a narrow set of research uses, the great majority of analyses would produce results that are beyond absurd: average income in the negative millions, or correlations well above 1, for example. The legal community has been misled into thinking that differential privacy can offer the benefits of data research without sacrificing privacy. In fact, differential privacy will usually produce either very wrong research results or very useless privacy protections. Policymakers and data stewards will have to rely on a mix of approaches: perhaps differential privacy where it is well-suited to the task, and other disclosure prevention techniques in the great majority of situations where it isn’t