It turns out the internet was one Sam Alito petulant tantrum away from being a total disaster. In two key First Amendment cases, Alito was given the majority opinion to write. And, in both of them, his insistence on obliterating the old boundaries of the First Amendment caused other Justices to switch sides – and Alito to act like a spoiled brat.

This year, the Supreme Court session ran later than usual. Usually, they finish up by the end of June, but this year it extended the term over to July 1st. There were, obviously, a bunch of “big” decisions (Presidential immunity! Chevron deference!) that were held to the very end, including the two big internet cases: the NetChoice cases and the Murthy case.

As people awaited the decisions, there was a fair bit of SCOTUSology as court experts (and non-experts) speculated based on the number of decisions written by each Justice (and which months the cases were heard in) as to which Justice would have the majority decisions in remaining cases. I heard from quite a few such experts who expected that Alito would have the majority decision in the NetChoice cases, given that the other Justices all seemed to have majority opinions from February cases, and Alito’s name seemed to be missing.

Some people were surprised because in basically all of the internet cases oral arguments, Alito seemed quite out of step with the rest of the Court (and reality). When the decision finally came out, saying that the lower courts didn’t do the proper analysis for a “facial challenge,” it sent the cases back to the lower courts for a redo. But the majority opinion included some very important commentary about how the First Amendment still applies to social media editorial discretion. The overall ruling was technically a unanimous decision, but some noted that Justice Alito’s “concurrence” read like it had been written to be the majority opinion. It delves deeper into the facts of the case than a concurrence normally would (the majority opinion normally handles that).

Oh, and one other weird thing: in that final week of June, people were confused by Justice Alito not showing up to a couple of decision days, and his absence was never explained. Until now.

CNN now has quite an incredible insider’s tale of how Justice Alito had, in fact, been given the job of writing the majority opinion in the NetChoice cases, but lost it because he tried to push the decision too far into saying that states could regulate content moderation.

Alito, while receptive to the 5th Circuit’s opinion minimizing the companies’ speech interests, emphasized the incompleteness of the record and the need to remand the cases. Joining him were fellow conservatives Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch and, to some extent, Barrett and Jackson.

On the other side was Kagan, leaning toward the 11th Circuit’s approach. She wanted to clarify the First Amendment implications when states try to control how platforms filter messages and videos posted by their users. She was generally joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh.

Alito began writing the court’s opinion for the dominant five-member bloc, and Kagan for the remaining four.

It’s also interesting that Justice Jackson was siding with Alito. During oral arguments, Justice Jackson asked some… odd questions, leading some to worry about how she might come down. The CNN report suggests those fears were legitimate.

Either way, Alito pushed his views too far and caused both Barrett and Jackson to bail out.

But when Alito sent his draft opinion around to colleagues several weeks later, his majority began to crumble. He questioned whether any of the platforms’ content-moderation could be considered “expressive” activity under the First Amendment.

Barrett, a crucial vote as the case played out, believed some choices regarding content indeed reflected editorial judgments protected by the First Amendment. She became persuaded by Kagan, but she also wanted to draw lines between the varying types of algorithms platforms use.

“A function qualifies for First Amendment protection only if it is inherently expressive,” Barrett wrote in a concurring statement, asserting that if platform employees create an algorithm that identifies and deletes information, the First Amendment protects that exercise of editorial judgment. That might not be the situation, Barrett said, for algorithms that automatically present content aimed at users’ preferences.

Kagan added a footnote to her majority opinion buttressing that point and reinforcing Barrett’s view. Kagan wrote that the court was not dealing “with feeds whose algorithms respond solely to how users act online – giving them the content they appear to want, without any regard to independent content standards.”

Barrett’s concerns have been worrying to some, as it suggests that algorithmic recommendations may not be protected by the First Amendment. This would upset a bunch of what people thought was settled law regarding things like search engine recommendations. However, the hope is that if such a case comes before the Court (which it almost certainly will…), that a fuller briefing on the record would clarify that algorithmic recommendations are still speech.

As we noted, Alito’s concurrence reads pretty petulant. It declares the majority’s “First Amendment applies to social media” explanation as “nonbinding dicta.” CNN details that this was him being angry that he lost the majority on that case.

But the key reason he lost control over the decision seems to be that he, unlike the eventual majority, would have sided a lot more with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, which upended a century’s worth of First Amendment law.

Alito had the backing of only two justices in the end, Thomas and Gorsuch. He expressed sympathy for state efforts to restrict what, in an earlier phase of the Texas case Alito called “the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.”

In his separate July 1 opinion for a minority, Alito pointed up why states might want to regulate how platforms filter content: “Deleting the account of an elected official or candidate for public office may seriously impair that individual’s efforts to reach constituents or voters, as well as the ability of voters to make a fully informed electoral choice. And what platforms call ‘content moderation’ of the news or user comments on public affairs can have a substantial effect on popular views.”

Like Oldham, Alito took jabs at the “sophisticated counsel” who challenged the state regulations.

The same article notes that Alito also lost the majority on another “Fifth Circuit misunderstands the First Amendment” case. The one involving Sylvia Gonzalez, who was retaliated against by the mayor for her efforts to shake up the local government. The Fifth Circuit originally said this was totally fine. Eventually, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit to try again.

But again, Alito tried to go too far:

When the justices voted on the case in March, the majority agreed that the 5th Circuit erred in the standard it used. Alito was assigned the opinion.

But as he began writing, he went further than the other justices in his review of Gonzalez’s case. Alito and his colleagues realized he couldn’t “hold five,” as the expression goes, for a majority.

A new majority agreed to dispatch the case with a limited rationale in unsigned opinion. Rejecting the 5th Circuit’s reasoning, the Supreme Court said the 5th Circuit had applied an “overly cramped view” of the court’s precedent for when people may sue for First Amendment retaliation claims. The high court noted that Gonzalez could not show evidence of whether officers handled similar situations differently because her situation, involving the alleged removal of a document, was exceedingly rare.

Alito also wrote a concurrence for that case, but here he went on a long rant basically explaining why even if the Fifth Circuit used the wrong standard, there were lots of reasons why Gonzalez should have lost her case. Basically, if he had written the majority opinion, all of this would have qualified as “nonbinding dicta” under Alito’s own standard. Now, at least, it’s just a concurrence.

But, apparently, because Alito was ticked off that he couldn’t “hold five” in either of these cases, it caused him to take his ball and go home (i.e., just not show up at the Court on decision days):

On June 20, when the chief justice announced the opinion in Gonzalez v. Trevino, Alito’s chair at the bench was empty. Alito missed that day, as a total four opinions were handed down, and the next, June 21, when the justices released five other opinions.

Justices sometimes skip one of these final days of the annual session, but usually there’s an obvious reason for the absence, such as travel to a previously scheduled speech. Court officials declined to provide any explanation.

Alito returned for the final four announcement days of the term, yet sometimes appeared preoccupied. On the last day, when Kagan announced the decision in the NetChoice case, Alito was reading through material he had brought along to the bench.

Poor baby.

In both cases, Alito’s view of the First Amendment seems disconnected from reality and history. And, in both cases, he still had a chance to write the majority opinion (sending both cases down on what is, effectively, technicalities). But, in both cases, he was unable to write a reasonable opinion, causing his colleagues on the bench to jump ship to more reasonable rulings.

And, in response, he decided to just sulk like a teenager who didn’t get his way. In the end, that left us with a much better, more First Amendment supportive majority decision (in both cases). But it’s truly incredible how close we came to bad decisions in each, and how both of those flipped due to Alito’s insistence on pushing his terrible, unsupported ideas about free speech.

“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”

That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.

Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.

Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.

Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.

We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?

Yeah, you know where this is going.

NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).

On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

TikTok is missing.

Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:

“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.

I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.

Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:

“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”

Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.

Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:

Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes

Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?

This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”

Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.

It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.

“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”

That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.

Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.

Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.

Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.

We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?

Yeah, you know where this is going.

NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).

On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

TikTok is missing.

Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:

“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.

I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.

Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:

“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”

Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.

Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:

Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes

Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?

This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”

Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.

It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.

“Do you now, or have you ever, worked with TikTok to help defend its rights?”

That McCarthyism-esque question is apparently being asked by members of Congress to organizations that have been working with TikTok to defend its Constitutional rights.

Does anyone think it’s right for Congress to threaten to punish organizations from working with TikTok? Does that sound like a First Amendment violation to you? Because it sure does to me.

Over the last year or so, we’ve been hearing a lot of talk out of Congress on two specific issues: the supposed horrors of government officials suppressing speech and, at the same time, the supposed horrors of a successful social media app that has ties to China.

Would it surprise you to find that there are some hypocrites in Congress about all of this? Shocking, I know.

We already highlighted how a bunch of members of Congress both signed an amicus brief in the Murthy case saying that governments should never, ever, interfere with speech and also voted to ban TikTok. But, would those same members of Congress who are so worried about “jawboning” by government officials to suppress speech also then use the power of Congress to silence voices trying to defend TikTok?

Yeah, you know where this is going.

NetChoice has been the main trade group that has been defending against all the terrible laws being thrust upon the internet over the last few years. Often people dismiss NetChoice as “big tech” or “the tech industry,” but in my experience they’ve been solidly standing up for good and important internet speech policies. NetChoice has been structured to be independent of its members (i.e., they get to decide what cases they take on, not their members, which sometimes means their members dislike the causes and cases NetChoice takes on).

On Wednesday of this week, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

I highlighted TikTok in particular, because on Thursday, NetChoice’s membership roster looked like this:

TikTok is missing.

Why? Well, because members of Congress threatened to investigate NetChoice if it didn’t drop TikTok from its roster. Politico had some of this story last night, claiming that there was pressure from Congress to drop TikTok:

“The Select Committee’s brazen efforts to intimidate private organizations for associating with a company with 170 million American users is a clear abuse of power that smacks of McCarthyism,” TikTok spokesperson Alex Haurek said in a statement, referring to the House China panel. “It’s a sad day when Members of Congress single out individual companies without evidence while trampling on constitutional rights and the democratic process,” Haurek added. A spokesperson for NetChoice didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The two people told Daniel that NetChoice faced pressure from the office of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) to dump TikTok. A third person said that while no threat was made, NetChoice was told that the Select Committee on China would be investigating groups associated with TikTok and decided to sever ties as a result.

I’ve heard that the claim there was “no threat” is not accurate. As the rest of that paragraph makes clear, there was very much an implied threat that Congress would investigate organizations working with TikTok to defend its rights. I’m also hearing that others, like PR agencies and lobbying organizations that work with TikTok, are now facing similar threats from Congress.

Indeed, despite the “denial” of any threat, Politico gets the “House Select Committee on the CCP” to admit that it will launch an investigation into any organization that helps TikTok defend its rights:

“Significant bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate deemed TikTok a grave national security threat and the President signed a bill into law requiring them to divest from the CCP,” a Scalise spokesperson told PI. “It should not come as a surprise to those representing TikTok that as long as TikTok remains connected to the CCP, Congress will continue its rigorous oversight efforts to safeguard Americans from foreign threats.”

Guys, that’s not “rigorous oversight” or “safeguarding Americans.” That’s using the threats of bogus costly investigations to force companies to stop working with TikTok and helping it defend its rights under the Constitution. That seems to be a hell of a lot more like “jawboning” and a much bigger First Amendment problem than the Biden administration complaining publicly that they didn’t like how Facebook was handling COVID misinformation.

Remember, this is what the GOP Congressional folks said when they filed their amicus in the Murthy case:

Wielding threats of intervention, the executive branch of the federal government has engaged in a sustained effort to coerce private parties into censoring speech on matters of public concern. On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes

Isn’t that… exactly what these Congressional committees are now doing themselves? Except, much worse? Because the threats are much more direct, and the punitive nature of not obeying is even clearer and more directly tied to the speech at issue?

This sure seems to be exactly unconstitutional “jawboning.”

Whether or not you believe that there are real risks from China, it seems absolutely ridiculous that Congress is now basically following an authoritarian playbook, threatening companies for merely associating with and/or defending the rights of a company.

It undermines the principles of free speech and association, allowing governmental entities to dictate what organizations can and cannot support. This overreach of power directly chills advocacy efforts and hinders the protection of fundamental rights.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice. The cases are about a pair of laws, enacted by Texas and Florida, that attempt to force large social media platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and X to host large amounts of speech against their will. (Think neo-Nazi rants, anti-vax conspiracies, and depictions of self-harm.) The states’ effort to co-opt social media companies’ editorial policies blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Since the laws are constitutional trainwrecks, it’s no surprise that Texas’s and Florida’s legal theories are weak. They rely heavily on the notion that what social media companies do is not really editing — and thus is not expressive. Editors, Texas says in a brief, are “reputationally responsible” for the content they reproduce. And yet, the state continues, “no reasonable observer associates” social media companies with the speech they disseminate.

This claim is absurd on its face. Everyone holds social media companies “reputationally responsible” for their content moderation. Users do, because most of them don’t like using a product full of hate speech and harassment. Advertisers do, out of a concern for their “brand safety.” Journalists do. Civil rights groups do. Even the Republican politicians who enacted this pair of bad laws do — that’s why they yell about how “Big Tech oligarchs” engage in so-called censorship.

That the Texas and Florida GOP are openly contemptuous of the First Amendment, and incompetent to boot, isn’t exactly news. So let’s turn instead to some delicious ironies. 

Consider that the right’s favorite social media addict, robber baron, and troll Elon Musk has single-handedly destroyed Texas’s and Florida’s case.

After the two states’ laws were enacted, Elon Musk conducted something of a natural experiment in content moderation—one that has wrecked those laws’ underlying premise. Musk purchased Twitter, transformed it into X, and greatly reduced content moderation on the service. As tech reporter Alex Kantrowitz remarks, the new approach “privileges” extreme content from “edgelords.”

This, in turn, forces users to work harder to find quality content, and to tolerate being exposed to noxious content. But users don’t have to put up with this — and they haven’t. “Since Musk bought Twitter in October 2022,” Kantrowitz finds, “it’s lost approximately 13 percent of its app’s daily active users.” Clearly, users “associate” social-media companies with the speech they host!

It gets better. Last November, Media Matters announced that, searching X, it had found several iconic brands’ advertisements displayed next to neo-Nazi posts. Did Musk say, “Whatever, dudes, racist content being placed next to advertisements on our site doesn’t affect X’s reputation”? No. He had X sue Media Matters.

In its complaint, X asserts that it “invests heavily” in efforts to keep “fringe content” away from advertisers’ posts. The company also alleges that Media Matters gave the world a “false impression” about what content tends to get “pair[ed]” on the platform. These statements make sense only if people care — and X cares that people care — about how X arranges content on X.

X even states that Media Matters has tried to “tarnish X’s reputation by associating [X] with racist content.” It would be hard to admit more explicitly that social-media companies are “reputationally responsible” for, because they are “associated” with, the content they disseminate.

Consider also that Texas ran to Musk’s defense. Oblivious to how Musk’s vendetta hurts Texas’s case at the Supreme Court, Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, opened a fraud investigation against Media Matters (the basic truth of whose report Musk’s lawsuit does not dispute).

Consider finally how Texas’s last-ditch defense gets mowed down by the right’s favorite Supreme Court justice. According to Texas, social-media companies can scrub the reputational harm from spreading abhorrent content simply by “disavowing” that content. But none other than Justice Clarence Thomas has blown this argument apart. If, Thomas writes, a state could force speech on an entity merely by letting that entity “disassociate” from the speech with a “disclaimer,” that “would justify any law compelling speech.”

Only the government can “censor” speech. Texas and Florida are the true censors here, as they seek to restrict the expressive editorial judgment of social-media companies. That conduct is expressive. Just ask Elon Musk. And that expressiveness is fatal to Texas’s and Florida’s laws. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Texas’s and Florida’s social-media speech codes aren’t just unconstitutional, they can’t even be defended coherently.

Corbin Barthold is internet policy counsel at TechFreedom.