Corbin Barthold
@corbinkbarthold.bsky.social
Husband and father. Internet Policy Counsel @techfreedom.org. Host of the Tech Policy Podcast. Just 'cause you're hungry doesn't mean that you're lean.
Pretty wild to see the Solicitor General come right out and say, YEAH, DUDE'S A MAD KING.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
September 16, 2025 at 6:46 PM
Pretty wild to see the Solicitor General come right out and say, YEAH, DUDE'S A MAD KING.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
We are led by the best people.
August 11, 2025 at 8:26 PM
We are led by the best people.
3/ NetChoice's brief leads with the value of social media for free speech. That is indeed the headline.
We add: This is a simple case. FSC v. Paxton addressed an unprotected category of speech. States may not make up new such categories. Yet that is what Miss. has tried to do.
We add: This is a simple case. FSC v. Paxton addressed an unprotected category of speech. States may not make up new such categories. Yet that is what Miss. has tried to do.
July 24, 2025 at 3:38 PM
3/ NetChoice's brief leads with the value of social media for free speech. That is indeed the headline.
We add: This is a simple case. FSC v. Paxton addressed an unprotected category of speech. States may not make up new such categories. Yet that is what Miss. has tried to do.
We add: This is a simple case. FSC v. Paxton addressed an unprotected category of speech. States may not make up new such categories. Yet that is what Miss. has tried to do.
2/ The 5th Circuit mistook SCOTUS's recent decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton as a green light, to states, to impose age-verification and parental-consent mandates on social media.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Nothing could be further from the truth!
July 24, 2025 at 3:36 PM
2/ The 5th Circuit mistook SCOTUS's recent decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton as a green light, to states, to impose age-verification and parental-consent mandates on social media.
Nothing could be further from the truth!
Nothing could be further from the truth!
1/ Most pleased to file a brief for @techfreedom.org in support of @netchoice.bsky.social's emergency application at SCOTUS.
A Mississippi law, HB 1126, age-gates social media. The Fifth Circuit let the law take full effect pending appeal. SCOTUS must step in and rescue free speech online.
A Mississippi law, HB 1126, age-gates social media. The Fifth Circuit let the law take full effect pending appeal. SCOTUS must step in and rescue free speech online.
July 24, 2025 at 3:36 PM
1/ Most pleased to file a brief for @techfreedom.org in support of @netchoice.bsky.social's emergency application at SCOTUS.
A Mississippi law, HB 1126, age-gates social media. The Fifth Circuit let the law take full effect pending appeal. SCOTUS must step in and rescue free speech online.
A Mississippi law, HB 1126, age-gates social media. The Fifth Circuit let the law take full effect pending appeal. SCOTUS must step in and rescue free speech online.
Incidentally, here's how I closed things out. Written on Thurs night. In light of the events of the weekend, feels all the more true now.
June 9, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Incidentally, here's how I closed things out. Written on Thurs night. In light of the events of the weekend, feels all the more true now.
The dogs in this photo of Edith Wharton go so hard.
May 5, 2025 at 1:11 AM
The dogs in this photo of Edith Wharton go so hard.
Super, we're going to do this all over again.
April 18, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Super, we're going to do this all over again.
Might be a little weak sauce, I admit, but I was thinking out loud about this over at The Bulwark a couple weeks ago.
April 18, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Might be a little weak sauce, I admit, but I was thinking out loud about this over at The Bulwark a couple weeks ago.
I'm still getting used to seeing the DoJ habitually make bush-league arguments, such as: It's not contempt if the order you openly defied later gets overturned on appeal.
April 8, 2025 at 10:56 PM
I'm still getting used to seeing the DoJ habitually make bush-league arguments, such as: It's not contempt if the order you openly defied later gets overturned on appeal.
For those trying to keep up:
*This* is not classified, but the times when the planes Bukele turned into a rock video landed are a state secret.
*This* is not classified, but the times when the planes Bukele turned into a rock video landed are a state secret.
March 26, 2025 at 5:35 PM
For those trying to keep up:
*This* is not classified, but the times when the planes Bukele turned into a rock video landed are a state secret.
*This* is not classified, but the times when the planes Bukele turned into a rock video landed are a state secret.
Wrote this five years ago yesterday. It wasn't meant as a dare. 😬
March 24, 2025 at 5:38 PM
Wrote this five years ago yesterday. It wasn't meant as a dare. 😬
Which is not to say that Boasberg shouldn't second guess Trump's invocation of the AEA.
Trump is claiming that, for AEA purposes, the Tren de Aragua gang *is* the Venezuelan nation/government.
When the President is willing to make such blatantly bad-faith arguments, the system is breaking down.
Trump is claiming that, for AEA purposes, the Tren de Aragua gang *is* the Venezuelan nation/government.
When the President is willing to make such blatantly bad-faith arguments, the system is breaking down.
March 18, 2025 at 4:53 PM
Which is not to say that Boasberg shouldn't second guess Trump's invocation of the AEA.
Trump is claiming that, for AEA purposes, the Tren de Aragua gang *is* the Venezuelan nation/government.
When the President is willing to make such blatantly bad-faith arguments, the system is breaking down.
Trump is claiming that, for AEA purposes, the Tren de Aragua gang *is* the Venezuelan nation/government.
When the President is willing to make such blatantly bad-faith arguments, the system is breaking down.
In the Boasberg constitutional crisis case, the DoJ quotes a 1946 D.C. Circuit decision for the notion that Alien Enemies Act deportations are unreviewable.
But they've omitted a passage that says a court may review *whether the deportee is an enemy alien* -- the whole question here.
Pure hackery.
But they've omitted a passage that says a court may review *whether the deportee is an enemy alien* -- the whole question here.
Pure hackery.
March 18, 2025 at 4:43 PM
In the Boasberg constitutional crisis case, the DoJ quotes a 1946 D.C. Circuit decision for the notion that Alien Enemies Act deportations are unreviewable.
But they've omitted a passage that says a court may review *whether the deportee is an enemy alien* -- the whole question here.
Pure hackery.
But they've omitted a passage that says a court may review *whether the deportee is an enemy alien* -- the whole question here.
Pure hackery.
this is really bad math, only one NBA team can win the title.
February 26, 2025 at 4:16 PM
this is really bad math, only one NBA team can win the title.
January 15, 2025 at 10:07 PM
I'm really dating myself here, but anyone else think of this line when Alito was waxing lyrical about the days when Playboy published "essays by Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley"?
January 15, 2025 at 10:00 PM
I'm really dating myself here, but anyone else think of this line when Alito was waxing lyrical about the days when Playboy published "essays by Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley"?
As I skim through this again, one thing that really stands out is how much Gorsuch didn't show up today. At *every turn*, he was looking to stick up for Texas and distinguish cases that benefit FSC.
Compare that to the paean he just wrote to protecting "messages we hate" in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Compare that to the paean he just wrote to protecting "messages we hate" in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
January 15, 2025 at 6:25 PM
As I skim through this again, one thing that really stands out is how much Gorsuch didn't show up today. At *every turn*, he was looking to stick up for Texas and distinguish cases that benefit FSC.
Compare that to the paean he just wrote to protecting "messages we hate" in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
Compare that to the paean he just wrote to protecting "messages we hate" in 303 Creative v. Elenis.
4/ Also, a huge shoutout to @aaronmackey.bsky.social and @eff.org for letting me and the @techfreedom.org team join their amicus brief in the case.
If you want to learn all about the problems with online age verification, start here!
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23...
If you want to learn all about the problems with online age verification, start here!
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23...
January 15, 2025 at 2:42 PM
4/ Also, a huge shoutout to @aaronmackey.bsky.social and @eff.org for letting me and the @techfreedom.org team join their amicus brief in the case.
If you want to learn all about the problems with online age verification, start here!
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23...
If you want to learn all about the problems with online age verification, start here!
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23...
1/ Time for my first SCOTUS oral arg live thread on Bluesky!
Today the Court is hearing Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
This is the online age verification / Texas hates porn case.
www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...
Today the Court is hearing Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
This is the online age verification / Texas hates porn case.
www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...
January 15, 2025 at 2:38 PM
1/ Time for my first SCOTUS oral arg live thread on Bluesky!
Today the Court is hearing Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
This is the online age verification / Texas hates porn case.
www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...
Today the Court is hearing Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton.
This is the online age verification / Texas hates porn case.
www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argumen...
Update: Here's Texas, taking full advantage of the 6th Cir's ruling in a supplemental filing at SCOTUS.
Like the 6th Cir itself, Tex leads with the old Kristof article and the supposed horrors of porn. The merits of the case come in as a mere afterthought.
Like the 6th Cir itself, Tex leads with the old Kristof article and the supposed horrors of porn. The merits of the case come in as a mere afterthought.
January 14, 2025 at 8:50 PM
Update: Here's Texas, taking full advantage of the 6th Cir's ruling in a supplemental filing at SCOTUS.
Like the 6th Cir itself, Tex leads with the old Kristof article and the supposed horrors of porn. The merits of the case come in as a mere afterthought.
Like the 6th Cir itself, Tex leads with the old Kristof article and the supposed horrors of porn. The merits of the case come in as a mere afterthought.
They seem to take for granted that age-gating speech *harmful to minors* is ok, and then ask whether the law is over-inclusive judged by that standard.
That's only one of like six big problems with these laws. They skip over everything that's driven all the decisions striking down similar laws.
That's only one of like six big problems with these laws. They skip over everything that's driven all the decisions striking down similar laws.
January 13, 2025 at 11:56 PM
They seem to take for granted that age-gating speech *harmful to minors* is ok, and then ask whether the law is over-inclusive judged by that standard.
That's only one of like six big problems with these laws. They skip over everything that's driven all the decisions striking down similar laws.
That's only one of like six big problems with these laws. They skip over everything that's driven all the decisions striking down similar laws.
The opinion just tries to nitpick the trial court's analysis of facial invalidity (thanks yet again, Moody v. NetChoice).
They duck the 1A burden age verification places on adults, as well as the issue of whether age verification is overly restrictive, compared to device-side parental controls.
They duck the 1A burden age verification places on adults, as well as the issue of whether age verification is overly restrictive, compared to device-side parental controls.
January 13, 2025 at 11:46 PM
The opinion just tries to nitpick the trial court's analysis of facial invalidity (thanks yet again, Moody v. NetChoice).
They duck the 1A burden age verification places on adults, as well as the issue of whether age verification is overly restrictive, compared to device-side parental controls.
They duck the 1A burden age verification places on adults, as well as the issue of whether age verification is overly restrictive, compared to device-side parental controls.
This panel serves up a giant freakout, without even considering whether the law before them *actually addresses the supposed problem* they're freaking out about.
January 13, 2025 at 11:32 PM
This panel serves up a giant freakout, without even considering whether the law before them *actually addresses the supposed problem* they're freaking out about.