Daphne Keller: My "Lawful but Awful" article was unavailable outside of paid databases for a while, thanks to some website migration issues at U Chicago. But it's back! Here is the new URL. lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archi...

My "Lawful but Awful" article was unavailable outside of paid databases for a while, thanks to some website migration issues at U Chicago. But it's back! Here is the new URL. lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archi...

Lawful but Awful? Control over Legal Speech by Platforms, Governments, and Internet Users | The University of Chicago Law Review lawreview.uchicago.edu In his quixotic bid to buy and reform Twitter, Elon Musk swiftly arrived at the same place nearly every tech mogul does: he doesn’t want censorship, but he does want to be able to suppress some legal ...

This is very helpful. Might a middleware approach be applied laterally to other types of content? Like user-defined filters on advertising or AI generated content? Is there a role for the state to facilitate this possibility though, for example, a bot (or advert?) labelling law akin to California's?

In principle yes to both. What role the state can/should play is open to debate, but for starters eliminating legal claims that let platforms sue middleware providers would be good!

Right. I’m imagining enabling framework legislation in which platforms of varying scales (akin to the EUs DSA) would be required to facilitate middleware to varying extents. And in addition to middleware for primary content it could also cover “secondary” areas like AI content or advertising.

Post