Alan Rozenshtein

@arozenshtein.bsky.social

680

Followers

126

Following

Posts

Assoc prof at the University of Minnesota Law School. Senior editor at Lawfare. Co-host, Rational Security. Former DOJ.

Posts Replies Media

With the Senate about to pass the TikTok ban/divestment bill, thoughts in @lawfare.bsky.social are on the FIrst Amendment implications. Short version: The level of constitutional scrutiny doesn't matter. And the main issue is Chinese influence, not data privacy. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/five...

🚨 New paper! Thanks to the Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin for publishing my essay, "Interpreting the Ambiguities of Section 230," in which I argue that refocusing on Section 230 as a standard statutory interpretation problem. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

New in @lawfare.bsky.social, some thoughts on presidential immunity. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/corr...

Reposted by

Alan Rozenshtein

"[M]odel weights are not generally used to express ideas among individuals but, rather, serve primarily as instructions to order machines to act." @arozenshtein.bsky.social pushes back on the argument that model weights for AI are protected by the First Amendment.

There Is No General First Amendment Right to Distribute Machine-Learning Model Weightswww.lawfaremedia.org Unlike source code, which humans use to express ideas to each other, model weights function primarily as machine-readable instructions.

I have a new piece up on @lawfare.bsky.social arguing that the First Amendment does not generally protect the distribution of machine-learning model weights. This is an important legal issue as the government considers AI export controls. www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ther...

Some thoughts on why we're seeing a spurt of anti-Section 230 litigation. One big factor is that the Supreme Court's punting of the issue in Gonzalez sent a signal that the consensus on Section 230 may not be so straightforward after all. www.law.com/2024/03/26/m...

An important point. His entire strategy is to do whatever it takes to gin up his base and win reelection, at which he point he pressure his DOJ to make these cases go away. Totally breaks the ordinary incentives of defendants.

I think lawyer-people sometimes forget that stuff that looks batshit insane if you assume Trump is attempting to win cases based on the law makes a lot more sense when you remember his chosen job description is inciting political violence.

Reposted by

Alan Rozenshtein

It’s the ”Regulatory Cage Match” Edition! This week, @arozenshtein.bsky.social, @qjurecic.bsky.social, and @sranderson.bsky.social were joined by Eugenia Lostri to tackle some of the overlooked national security stories from the past few weeks, including the recent Biden administration's EO on AI:

Rational Security: The “Regulatory Cage Match” Editionwww.lawfaremedia.org This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Lawfare cyber fellow Eugenia Lostri to tackle some of the overlooked national security stories that have been percolating the past few weeks.

Thanks to everyone who participated in and attended yesterday's conference at the University of Minnesota Law School on the Section 3 and Trump. The recording is available here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovzi...

Happening tomorrow! See the conference website for in-person and livestream info: law.umn.edu/events/secti...

Very excited to announce that the University of Minnesota Law School will be hosting a conference on October 30, "Section 3, Insurrection, and the 2024 Election: Does the Fourteenth Amendment Bar Donald Trump from the Presidency?" Registration & livestream info here. law.umn.edu/events/secti...

Thanks to @washingtonpost.com for highlighting Monday's University of Minnesota Law conference on Section 3 and Trump. The piece features @juliaazari.bsky.social, Derek Muller, Josh Blackman, and Kurt Lash, all of whom will be speakers. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Hearings begin as Trump critics attempt to kick him off ballotswww.washingtonpost.com Lawsuits in Colorado and Minnesota center on the 14th Amendment, which bars those who engage in an insurrection from running for office.

Reposted by

Alan Rozenshtein

Very very excited to publish this—get it while it's hot!

Delighted that my Brookings Institution paper on how to do statutory interpretation of Section 230 is finally out. An expanded version is coming out early next year in the Yale Journal on Regulation Bulletin. www.brookings.edu/articles/int...

Reposted by

Alan Rozenshtein

I have great news for everyone worried about the House certifying a Biden victory in 2025: a) the Electoral Count Act reform makes that way, way, way, way more difficult, and b) Kamala Harris is the Vice President

Reposted by

Alan Rozenshtein

The ”Israel and Hamas at War” Special Edition This week, @arozenshtein.bsky.social, @qjurecic.bsky.social, and @sranderson.bsky.social were joined by @benjaminwittes.bsky.social for a serious conversation about Hamas’s attacks in Israel and what comes next.

Rational Security: The ”Israel and Hamas at War” Special Editionlawfaremedia.org This week, Alan, Quinta, and Scott were joined by Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes for a serious conversation about Hamas’s attacks in Israel. 

New @lawfare.bsky.social conversation with @benjaminwittes.bsky.social, @qjurecic.bsky.social, and Scott Anderson about Gonzalez v. Google, the Internet case that wasn't. https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-big-internet-case-wasnt

www.lawfareblog.com

TikTok v. Montana is going to be absolutely fascinating. Just check out the issue lineup! https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23820566-tiktok-v-montana

End of feed.