Ari Cohn
@aricohn.com
First Amendment & defamation lawyer.
Lead Counsel for Tech Policy @thefireorg.bsky.social
Past: Free Speech Counsel @TechFreedom.org
Illini/music junkie/oofnik.
“A snarky gay lawyer Jessica Fletcher.”
Posts are my own.
https://linktr.ee/aricohn
Lead Counsel for Tech Policy @thefireorg.bsky.social
Past: Free Speech Counsel @TechFreedom.org
Illini/music junkie/oofnik.
“A snarky gay lawyer Jessica Fletcher.”
Posts are my own.
https://linktr.ee/aricohn
Of all the things I've ever posted in my life, this might actually be the least likely to make an employer upset at me.
November 26, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Of all the things I've ever posted in my life, this might actually be the least likely to make an employer upset at me.
You can continue to dwell in ignorance and presume things about people you don't know. Or you could be curious and find out. The choice is yours.
November 26, 2025 at 8:34 PM
You can continue to dwell in ignorance and presume things about people you don't know. Or you could be curious and find out. The choice is yours.
If only you were able to read just a little bit more.
November 26, 2025 at 6:31 AM
If only you were able to read just a little bit more.
After trying to come up with any possible way that you could be right, the inescapable conclusion is that it was very much personal. There is no way to "hate trans people" professionally but not personally.
She's a shitty person, and people who uncritically believe things she says should feel bad,
She's a shitty person, and people who uncritically believe things she says should feel bad,
November 26, 2025 at 6:11 AM
After trying to come up with any possible way that you could be right, the inescapable conclusion is that it was very much personal. There is no way to "hate trans people" professionally but not personally.
She's a shitty person, and people who uncritically believe things she says should feel bad,
She's a shitty person, and people who uncritically believe things she says should feel bad,
Does FIRE have the power to reverse federal court decisions?
November 26, 2025 at 4:24 AM
Does FIRE have the power to reverse federal court decisions?
First of all it's not "my" organization.
Second of all, we didn't, In fact, the website says this pretty clearly,
You're arguing against a position that was never taken.
Second of all, we didn't, In fact, the website says this pretty clearly,
You're arguing against a position that was never taken.
November 26, 2025 at 4:11 AM
First of all it's not "my" organization.
Second of all, we didn't, In fact, the website says this pretty clearly,
You're arguing against a position that was never taken.
Second of all, we didn't, In fact, the website says this pretty clearly,
You're arguing against a position that was never taken.
To the contrary, I even said this, many times over.
If you're going to be mad at someone, you should at least bother to familiarize yourself with why you're mad (instead of being mad because someone told you to be), and figure out whether it's accurate.
If you're going to be mad at someone, you should at least bother to familiarize yourself with why you're mad (instead of being mad because someone told you to be), and figure out whether it's accurate.
November 25, 2025 at 11:53 PM
To the contrary, I even said this, many times over.
If you're going to be mad at someone, you should at least bother to familiarize yourself with why you're mad (instead of being mad because someone told you to be), and figure out whether it's accurate.
If you're going to be mad at someone, you should at least bother to familiarize yourself with why you're mad (instead of being mad because someone told you to be), and figure out whether it's accurate.
It is unsurprising that you are the type of person to just say things without bothering to know if they're correct.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite.
Your bad.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite.
Your bad.
November 25, 2025 at 8:45 PM
It is unsurprising that you are the type of person to just say things without bothering to know if they're correct.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite.
Your bad.
In fact, I've said the exact opposite.
Your bad.
As if on cue, the cousin of this, "I replied to you, and am now aggravated that you engaged with me."
It's ok to be weird. But this is not the good kind of weird.
It's ok to be weird. But this is not the good kind of weird.
November 25, 2025 at 8:20 PM
As if on cue, the cousin of this, "I replied to you, and am now aggravated that you engaged with me."
It's ok to be weird. But this is not the good kind of weird.
It's ok to be weird. But this is not the good kind of weird.
Neither here nor there, but re: resources it always warms my heart when I think of when James Lindsay attacked the Trevor Project because he wants schools to out trans students to parents. I made a spite donation and then others also did. Raise several thousand in a couple hrs
x.com/AriCohn/stat...
x.com/AriCohn/stat...
November 25, 2025 at 7:48 PM
Neither here nor there, but re: resources it always warms my heart when I think of when James Lindsay attacked the Trevor Project because he wants schools to out trans students to parents. I made a spite donation and then others also did. Raise several thousand in a couple hrs
x.com/AriCohn/stat...
x.com/AriCohn/stat...
Just one example of several
November 25, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Just one example of several
Alejandra Caraballo: I need to be nicer to people.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
November 25, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Alejandra Caraballo: I need to be nicer to people.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
4/ The First Amendment forbids imposing a duty of care on speakers & subjecting them to negligence liability for protected speech based on independent acts of a listener.
Otherwise, anything one could construe as divisive or "radicalizing" (a favorite censorship buzzword) would be too risky to say
Otherwise, anything one could construe as divisive or "radicalizing" (a favorite censorship buzzword) would be too risky to say
November 25, 2025 at 12:52 AM
4/ The First Amendment forbids imposing a duty of care on speakers & subjecting them to negligence liability for protected speech based on independent acts of a listener.
Otherwise, anything one could construe as divisive or "radicalizing" (a favorite censorship buzzword) would be too risky to say
Otherwise, anything one could construe as divisive or "radicalizing" (a favorite censorship buzzword) would be too risky to say
3/ And speech that may have caused people to hate Charlie Kirk doesn't become unprotected just because someone decided to commit an act of violence. If it doesn't meet the incitement standard, we hold the person who did the thing responsible, not the person who conveyed ideas.
November 25, 2025 at 12:51 AM
3/ And speech that may have caused people to hate Charlie Kirk doesn't become unprotected just because someone decided to commit an act of violence. If it doesn't meet the incitement standard, we hold the person who did the thing responsible, not the person who conveyed ideas.
2/ For the Algorithm Accountability Act, the answer to that question is "no." Choosing which content to deliver, and then sorting and arranging it is expressive & protected by the First Amendment--whether done manually or by algorithm.
![Perhaps anticipating this point, Sen. Curtis argue> that the Algorithm Accountability Act poses no threat
to free speech: "Free speech means you can say what you want in the digital town square. Social-media
companies host that town square, but algorithms rearrange it." But free speech doesn't only protect
users' right to post online free of government censorship; it also protects the editorial decisions of
those that host those posts including algorithmic "rearranging," to use the senator's phrase. As the
Supreme Court recently affirmed in Moody v. NetChoice:
When the platforms use their Standards and Guidelines to decide which third-party content those
feeds will display, or how the display will be ordered and organized, they are making expressive
choices.And because that is true, they receive First Amendment protection.
The "rearranging" of speech is just as protected as the speech itself, as when a newspaper decides
which stories to print on the front page and which letters to the editor to publish. That is no less true
for social media platforms. In fact, the term "content-recommendation algorithm" itself points to its
expressive nature. Recommending something is a message "l think you would find this interesting."
The Moody Court also acknowledged the expressive nature of arranging online content (emphasis
added): "Deciding on the third-party speech that will be included in or excluded from a compilation
and then organizing and presenting the included items — is expressive activity of its own." Similarly,
while dismissing exactly the kind of case the Algorithm Accountability Act would enable, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held this past February: "Facebook's decision[s] to recommend certain
third-party content to specific users . are traditional editorial functions of publishers, notwithstanding
the various methods they use in performing" them.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:ooapl6do2c6xxglfxuxgbxae/bafkreie6n5fvi3uofd7c6gd7vhyv7xpg53ej6jiyvcvzv2jkho24ihjym4@jpeg)
November 25, 2025 at 12:51 AM
2/ For the Algorithm Accountability Act, the answer to that question is "no." Choosing which content to deliver, and then sorting and arranging it is expressive & protected by the First Amendment--whether done manually or by algorithm.
Sorry, forgot to link to the annual report that has details on that: www.thefire.org/annual-report
November 24, 2025 at 5:45 PM
Sorry, forgot to link to the annual report that has details on that: www.thefire.org/annual-report
David will be very surprised to learn that he doesn't actually care about LGBT issues (as will the like 30+ other ACLU staffers on there).
November 24, 2025 at 5:06 PM
David will be very surprised to learn that he doesn't actually care about LGBT issues (as will the like 30+ other ACLU staffers on there).
It does now, huh? Being invited to debate tells you what, exactly?
You probably should have looked at some of the other names who appear on that list before thinking it meant anything.
Or even just read the top of the page, really
You probably should have looked at some of the other names who appear on that list before thinking it meant anything.
Or even just read the top of the page, really
November 24, 2025 at 4:59 PM
It does now, huh? Being invited to debate tells you what, exactly?
You probably should have looked at some of the other names who appear on that list before thinking it meant anything.
Or even just read the top of the page, really
You probably should have looked at some of the other names who appear on that list before thinking it meant anything.
Or even just read the top of the page, really
Linear time, how does it work?
In fact it's the exact opposite. Look at the post. She went after me, not the other way around.
In fact it's the exact opposite. Look at the post. She went after me, not the other way around.
November 24, 2025 at 2:22 PM
Linear time, how does it work?
In fact it's the exact opposite. Look at the post. She went after me, not the other way around.
In fact it's the exact opposite. Look at the post. She went after me, not the other way around.
It's not social media or supposed attacks on masculinity that are causing the (largely made up) " male loneliness epidemic."
It's that some men choose to be people who nobody in their right mind would want to be around.
It's that some men choose to be people who nobody in their right mind would want to be around.
November 24, 2025 at 5:13 AM
It's not social media or supposed attacks on masculinity that are causing the (largely made up) " male loneliness epidemic."
It's that some men choose to be people who nobody in their right mind would want to be around.
It's that some men choose to be people who nobody in their right mind would want to be around.