The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Ukraine

Upcoming George Mason University Event on "Justice, International Law, and the War in Ukraine"

It will take place on Thursday, March 10, at 5 PM and is open to the public. I will speak, along with my colleague Prof. Jeremy Rabkin.

|

On Thursday, March 10, at 5-6:15 PM I will take part in a George Mason University panel on "Justice, International Law, and the War in Ukraine." The panel will be held in Room 121 at the Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, 3301 Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia, and is sponsored by the George Mason student chapter of the Federalist Society. The other speaker (in addition to myself) will be my law school colleague Prof. Jeremy Rabkin, a prominent international law scholar.

Prof. Rabkin will speak about the international law issues raised by Russia's war on Ukraine. I will cover moral issues, and also those related to refugee and migration rights. The event is free and open to the public, and there will also be free Ukrainian food available. We are working on ways to enable people who come to contribute to humanitarian causes assisting refugees and other victims of the war (though such contributions are not required as a condition of attendance).

As of March 4, George Mason University no longer requires masks at this type of event. We are in the process of creating a Zoom link for the event, so that people can also watch remotely. I will post the link here when able to do so. If you want to get it sooner than that, please contact me.

Because we put this event together so quickly, there has not yet been much opportunity to promote it through normal channels yet. So I am doing so here. I look forward to seeing interested VC readers who decide to attend, virtually or in person.

 

 

NEXT: How to Fight Putin by Offering Russians "a Million Little Carrots"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Will anyone address the crimes of scumbag lawyer, Putin and the absolutenecessityof eradicating him, his family and his oligarchs, their families? Will anyone discuss his immunization by the lawyer scum in the USA? Lawyer denier Volokh wants me cancelled. Would appreciate a rapid reply.

    1. One useful information would the list of trustworthy charities with over 90% of money reaching needy Ukrainians.

      1. Poland is willing to giving its planes. Biden is all slow about replacing them. Procedure.

        1. Airbnb is waiving its fees if people rent places in Ukraine. Good way to get $ into the country.

          1. Apparently there are a lot of people renting air bnb with no intention to go there obviously, as a way to pump cash in.

            I wonder if Canada will arrest them for sending money to free people being assaulted by modern Hitler.

            They stole and jailed for far less in their own country.

            1. I have been thinking about a certain kind of SF dystopia popular in the 1980s and 1990s, where governments were marginalized and corporations held the power. Silicon Valley and financial leaders back Ukraine in this fight so Russia is being cut off from markets and platforms, while Ukraine gets a bonus from them (money laundering via Airbnb, fundraising plea at the top of the Apple news feed).

              1. I have advocsted killing oligarchs and leaders, the causes of war. Stop killing peasants and working people. They just want to go home. If Russia and China start killing ours in retaliation, send them a gift of appreciation.

      2. Yes, indeed, a list of such charities would be just wonderful. Also, clear instructions as to how to attend the event virtually would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

  2. It is absolutely disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment.

    Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".

    Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyberstalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.

    Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

    Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyberharassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."

    Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyberharassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.

    Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyberharassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.

    Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online.

    Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact.

    1. We'll start with this.

      1. You assume the defendant is guilty in such cases. What if...the defendant isn't guilty? Should they have the right to know and face their accuser?

      1. In 99% of online harassment cases, the defendant is guilty. These are not fuzzy cases. If the defendant didn't want to get exposed publicly maybe he shouldn't have stalked or harassed the victims.

        It's not that hard to follow the law you know.

        No sympathy for criminals.

        1. Holden, I have an open mind about your point. Do you have examples of funding of Volokh by Big Tech?&

          1. Holden, I am a repeat and unwelcome critic of the lawyer profession and of the denial of the failures of the legal profession. Artie Lirkland is a stupid annoying asshole who insults people here. Are Artie and I cyberstalkers? Should we be arrested because Eugene asked us to stop and we refuse? Can you point to the line where that should trigger prosecution? Many feminists and the gays have doxxed religious people they dis agree with. People have damaged their homes. Obviously the vandals should be prosecuted but they are protected by the lawyer profession. What about the vicious gays that publicized their address from open property records? Prosecute them, the town for their property records? Tell more.

            I have a statute to suggest because the law is in failure. Collect the harassment. Hire a couple of guys from the hood. Pay them $300. Have the former boyfriend's ass beat twiice. Then kill him, if he still does not stop. Immunize this form of social self defense to modernize the law. Poor people make money. Society is rid of a toxic person. Everyone wins except the vile worthless rent seeling lawyer and its servants in the police prison complex. They greatly value the criminal. The protect, privilege, and empower the criminal to take our $trillion and return nothing of value. Did you know that a prison guard who says, stop acting like a fool, will be fired for emotionally abusing a prisoner? Is that criticism a form of harassment in your view?

            1. Nowhere did I say harassment was "criticism". Don't make facts up, Daivdbehar.

              My definition of harassment:
              - Doxing by posting name, individual information that is private in a public setting to shame and harass.
              - Making dedicated webpages to torment someone (a very malicious form of harassment).
              - Sending threats (may not be of physical violence but could be threats of increased cyber harassment)
              - Asking for money to get content removed (blackmail)
              - Posting people's private pictures online without consent
              - Posting any details of an individual online without consent, when those details were not found publicly or made public first by that individual. Truth should NOT matter.
              - Sending threats or urging of suicide to the victim
              - Repeated contacts to the individual pretending as if the harassment didn't exist

              So I take it Eugene Volokh views all of this as "Free Speech" and that the cyberstalker should have unlimited reign to bother and impact the life of the victim and the victims should have no way to fight back, I take it?

              Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism would mean that cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment is effectively legal.

              1. "Truth should not matter." 'Nuff said.

      2. Your argument implicitly assumes there are "defendants" who are unfairly hailed into courts by plaintiffs who don't have a case. But you blatantly ignore the reality that there are many more actual victims/plaintiffs who need to use a civil lawsuit to stop a mentally ill cyberstalker and it is unfair for the victims to not be able to use a pseudonym to protect their privacy from further harm.

        It wasn't the victim's fault that the stalker chose to target them. The victim should not be re-victimized again by the court system.

        1. So....let's say hypothetically, I sue you for cyberstalking. For this very thread. And demand fiscal damages. You're now a defendant in a stalking case.

          What then?

          1. Your hypothetical is off base.

            You won't ever sue me for cyberstalking. Here's why:

            Lawsuits are expensive. If my behaviour has not genuinely risen to the level of cyberstalking (which it hasn't) that is affecting your life, it's not in your rational incentive to spend thousands of dollars hiring a lawyer to sue me.

            The financial cost of hiring a lawyer to sue for cyberharassment is in itself a barrier to weed out frivolous cases. Ignorant lawyers like Eugene Volokh don't seem to understand this.

            In 99.9% of cyber-harassment cases, real malicious harassment did indeed take place. People don't spend thousands of dollars hiring lawyers to sue people for fun. That doesn't happen. The damage is in almost all cases truly actionable, like targeted harassment, doxing, sustained harassment, etc... that is truly malicious.

            So you'll never sue me. Ever. Because I didn't stalk you. And you know it.

            So that leaves 99.9% of cases where the victim was indeed cyberstalked by a malicious individual. I don't see why in these cases the victim should get constitutional protection to file a lawsuit using a pseudonym to protect their privacy. After all, the very cause (invasion of privacy) litigate against would be nullified if the court forced them to reveal their true identity. And it would be fundamentally unfair for victims of cyberstalking to be punished again, by the court system, by being forced to dox themselves.

            1. Correction in last paragraph: I don't see why in these cases the victim *shouldn't

            2. Harassment is a tort or a crime? Perhaps both. If the stalker has money, the lawyer may take a case on contingency. The plaintif will be left with tiny crumbs of course. I am afraid of opening a new line of business. The Suprem Court said lyrics with murder on facebook page were not a crime. The ex went jail after he was prosecuted. People who spent a night in jail will tell you it is pretty trough. What do you think of that Supreme Court decision? Did Volokh write an amicus brief for it? Dox him if he did. It should be in the SCOTUS blog. If you do and victims harass Eugene, should you be arrested for doxxing eugenen by researching the SCOTUS blog? Draw some clearer lines. I am of an open mind.

              1. Harassment, including cyber-harassment, is a CRIME. It should be prosecuted by the police. But most harassment cases are not taken seriously because enforcement hasn't caught up with the internet, so that only leaves victims the choice of a civil suit.

                Now, courts do not unanimously allow plaintiffs to file lawsuit civilly for cyberharassment using a pseudonym. This should change. Victims should not have to worry about another privacy infringement from the court system when holding their cyberstalkers or cyberharassers accountable. This is fundamental fairness.

            3. You assume rationality. That's not necessarily true of most people.

              Let's say, again, hypothetically, that I'm not "rational". So I sue you for stalking. You're completely innocent. But still a defendant in the lawsuit..

              Then what?

              Or to use your phrasing...
              "So you'll never sue me. Ever. Because I didn't stalk you. And you know it." -Doesn't matter. Gonna sue anyway.

              What happens?

  3. Worse of all, Eugene has attempted to DELETE and CENSOR my truthful posts ABOUT him as he found it "harassing", while denying the same recourse to thousands of REAL online harassment victims across the country and protecting the rights of their harassers. So Eugene has exposed his dishonesty and biased - if someone posts TRUTHFUL information ABOUT him that casts him in an unfavourable light, he WANTS it CENSORED, but when it happens to millions of other Americans, he claims they DO NOT deserve legal recourse and that the postings are FREE SPEECH.

  4. Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyberstalkers who continuous post private, personal information about victims online in an attempt to harass, disturb, cause emotional distress, or control their victims? What is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of these crimes to get the harassers to stop, get the harmful content removed, and allow the victims to return to their normal lives? Does he even give a shit? Does he even consider that the First Amendment may be outdated for the internet age, where anybody with any type of axe to grind or slight against an individual can post anything harmful online to affect the lives of the victims?

    The dangerous part of Eugene Volokh's analysis is he COMPLETELY ignores the mental impact to the victims of online harassment, he pretends like cyberstalking isn't even a thing. Free Speech absolutism without taking into account privacy interests, right of victims to be free from harassment, etc... is DANGEROUS. The result of Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism is that victims of malicious online harassment will NEVER be able to get legal recourse from their attackers, who can post any personal or embarrassing or private information with NO legal repercussion, maliciously, to ruin lives. This is apparently the world that Eugene Volokh wants.

    I'm sorry, but Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutist interpretation is simply dangerous for humanity and America, and is totally incorrect and one-sided.

    1. When it comes to mental illness going untreated the fault is 100% at the Supreme Court. These know nothing rent seeking lawyers took over psychiatry. They lawyerized the clinical decision of involuntary treatment. Result? Surges in suicide and in rampage killings done 90% of the time by untreated paranoids. 10% of murders are by paranoids who are untreated. That decision has to be reversed by statute. I support suing the Supreme Court for all suicides and rampage killings. They are 100% preventable with current treatment. Add cyberstalking as the fault of this know nothing Ivy indoctrinated traitor Supreme Court.

    2. mentally ill cyberstalkers

      Like Holden C.

  5. It is absolutely disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment.
    Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".
    Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyberstalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.
    Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?
    Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyberharassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."
    Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyberharassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.
    Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyberharassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.
    Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online.
    Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyberstalkers who continuous post private, personal information about victims online in an attempt to harass, disturb, cause emotional distress, or control their victims? What is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of these crimes to get the harassers to stop, get the harmful content removed, and allow the victims to return to their normal lives? Does he even give a shit? Does he even consider that the First Amendment may be outdated for the internet age, where anybody with any type of axe to grind or slight against an individual can post anything harmful online to affect the lives of the victims?
    The dangerous part of Eugene Volokh's analysis is he COMPLETELY ignores the mental impact to the victims of online harassment, he pretends like cyberstalking isn't even a thing. Free Speech absolutism without taking into account privacy interests, right of victims to be free from harassment, etc... is DANGEROUS. The result of Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism is that victims of malicious online harassment will NEVER be able to get legal recourse from their attackers, who can post any personal or embarrassing or private information with NO legal repercussion, maliciously, to ruin lives. This is apparently the world that Eugene Volokh wants.
    I'm sorry, but Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutist interpretation is simply dangerous for humanity and America, and is totally incorrect and one-sided.

    1. Where is Queenie? It keeps calling me autistic. That really hurts my feelings. A night in jail for Queenie would be good, isn't that right Holden?

  6. It is absolutely disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment.

    Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".
    Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyberstalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.

    Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

    Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyberharassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."

    Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyberharassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish, and would leave victims ABSOLUTELY NO DEFENSE against these heinous crimes.

    Furthermore, Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyberharassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.
    Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online.

    Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyberstalkers who continuous post private, personal information about victims online in an attempt to harass, disturb, cause emotional distress, or control their victims? What is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of these crimes to get the harassers to stop, get the harmful content removed, and allow the victims to return to their normal lives? Does he even give a shit? Does he even consider that the First Amendment may be outdated for the internet age, where anybody with any type of axe to grind or slight against an individual can post anything harmful online to affect the lives of the victims?

    The dangerous part of Eugene Volokh's analysis is he COMPLETELY ignores the mental impact to the victims of online harassment, he pretends like cyberstalking isn't even a thing. Free Speech absolutism without taking into account privacy interests, right of victims to be free from harassment, etc... is DANGEROUS. The result of Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism is that victims of malicious online harassment will NEVER be able to get legal recourse from their attackers, who can post any personal or embarrassing or private information with NO legal repercussion, maliciously, to ruin lives. This is apparently the world that Eugene Volokh wants.

    I'm sorry, but Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutist interpretation is simply dangerous for humanity and America, and is totally incorrect and one-sided. Courts and the legal community need to stop listening to this person's one-sided, loaded arguments that irresponsibly distort reality and eliminate all legal protection for victims of cyberstalking and online harassment. This is not right.

    1. Holden, I really appreciate your making me seem like a calm, dispassionate commentator. Thank you.

      1. Consider the truth:

        It is particularly striking that Eugene Volokh NEVER mentions the mental, physical, and social harms to VICTIMS of online harassment in any of his papers. I don't think he is so sadistic as to not be aware of this. Rather, I think Eugene is paid by Big Tech to peddle the "Free Speech" absolutism view, in line with Big Tech's agenda to not have the internet regulated in any way so they maximize profits (a small cut which probably flows to Eugene behind the scenes).

  7. I will be posting similar warnings across social media outlets to warn the world about Eugene Volokh's dangerous First Amendment interpretations that leave victims of online harassment, malicious online stalking, and doxing totally unprotected.

    This is not right, Eugene Volokh what a shame you are helping cyber-criminals and hurting helpless victims.

  8. It is truly disturbing that Eugene Volokh purposefully ignores in any of his "analysis" the reality of severe online harassment, doxing, invasions of privacy, and cyber-stalking that is increasingly prevalent in the world today. I'm talking about individuals being targeted for long periods of time by malicious stalkers, criminals with mental illnesses, sociopaths, and harassers.

    Eugene Volokh's Free Speech "absolutism" would basically allow these heinous individuals to get away with continuing to wreck, interfere, and invade the lives of victims. It would allow them to hide behind the cloak of the "First Amendment" while leaving victims with absolutely no legal recourse to stop the attacks, the stalking, or to get harmful content removed.

    Why is nobody calling out Eugene Volokh for this? Why is Eugene Volokh allowed to peddle his dangerous, irresponsible, First Amendment absolutism to the exclusion of all other rights of individuals, including the Right to Privacy, the Right to be Free from Harassment and Stalking, the Right to be Left Alone?

    Why is Eugene Volokh simply trying to make America a dangerous place for individuals and victims of harassment? His analysis completely ignores the reality of online abuse, especially against women, minorities, and just about every race and gender. Why is he trying to advocate for an "unregulated" internet where criminals roam free and victims have no way to protect themselves or fight back?

    1. Holden, you posted 12 times in rapid succession. Is that harassment or stalking? Should you spend a night in jail for your criticism of Eugene?

      1. Here's the truth:

        It is particularly striking that Eugene Volokh NEVER mentions the mental, physical, and social harms to VICTIMS of online harassment in any of his papers. I don't think he is so sadistic as to not be aware of this. Rather, I think Eugene is paid by Big Tech to peddle the "Free Speech" absolutism view, in line with Big Tech's agenda to not have the internet regulated in any way so they maximize profits (a small cut which probably flows to Eugene behind the scenes).

  9. Discussion of the Budapest Memorandum would be interesting.

    1. What is that? Don't make people look up stuff.

      1. The Budapest Memorandum was the agreement to guarantee the security of Ukraine if they gave up their nuclear weapons. It was signed by the US, the UK, and Russia.

        A lot of commentators are (to me, at least) trying to say it doesn’t actually mean that.

        1. Maybe because it doesn't say what you think it says.

          You should read it; it is not even 2 pages long: http://www.pircenter.org/media/content/files/12/13943175580.pdf

          1. "The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine"

            Seems pretty clear.

            1. And the USA and Britain are honoring that agreement, in that we aren't violating Ukraine's borders. Russia, not so much.

              It also specifies what the parties will do in the event of a violation: go to the UN. Which the USA/Brits have done.

              What it doesn't say is we will go to war. And it's not like no one knows how to agree to go to war in the event of an attack - see NATO Article 5:

              "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

              To be clear, I support aiding Ukraine - but the Budapest Memorandum doesn't make the same commitments that Article 5 does.

  10. Based on Eugene Volokh's dangerous First Amendment absolutism, malicious individuals who want to destroy another person, harm an innocent victims, can post whatever they want about that person online, and this will follow that person for the rest of their lives. Is it fair to allow a victim to be harmed indefinitely by malicious actors simply for the right of the cyberstalker to exercise plainly malicious, low-value speech? What is wrong with Eugene Volokh's brain when a simple calculation and balancing of interests (privacy v. free speech) becomes impossible for him to do?

    Or is he ignoring this point on purpose, because Silicon Valley is paying him behind the scenes to peddle Free Speech absolutism because they don't want Section 230 repealed as it saves them money?

    You decide for yourself.

  11. Proof that Eugene Volokh's "Google is a Publisher" paper was funded by Google (see the Atlantic article). Way to go for impartiality, Eugene. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Google doesn't want internet regulation => so you argue that online abuse is all "Free Speech." This way, Google makes money, and you might make some money behind the scenes.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/should-googles-search-results-be-protected-by-the-first-amendment/257468/

  12. It is highly likely Eugene Volokh works with Big Tech and gets paid to write papers that magically "conclude" that all content, including harassing, stalking, bullying content is "Free Speech." This is to protect Google and ISPs, who don't have to pay fines for not removing content. They save money, Eugene makes money behind the scenes.

    Eugene Volokh has admitted publicly several times that he was a paid consultant for Google. One should question his impartiality and ulterior motives.

  13. It is striking that Eugene Volokh NEVER mentions the mental, physical, and social harms to VICTIMS of online harassment in any of his papers. I don't think he is so sadistic as to not be aware of this. Rather, I think Eugene is paid by Big Tech to peddle the "Free Speech" absolutism view, in line with Big Tech's agenda to not have the internet regulated in any way so they maximize profits (a small cut which probably flows to Eugene behind the scenes).

  14. To me, and any reasonable observer who understands the real harm from online abuse and harassment, it is particularly striking that Eugene Volokh NEVER mentions the mental, physical, and social harms to VICTIMS of online harassment in any of his papers. I don't think he is so sadistic as to not be aware of this. Rather, I think Eugene is paid by Big Tech to peddle the "Free Speech" absolutism view, in line with Big Tech's agenda to not have the internet regulated in any way so they maximize profits (a small cut which probably flows to Eugene behind the scenes).

  15. Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyber-stalkers who continuously post private, personal information about victims online in an attempt to harass, disturb, cause emotional distress, or control their victims? What is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of these crimes to get the harassers to stop, get the harmful content removed, and allow the victims to return to their normal lives? Does he even give a shit? Does he even consider that the First Amendment may be outdated for the internet age, where anybody with any type of axe to grind or slight against an individual can post anything harmful online to affect the lives of the victims?

    The dangerous part of Eugene Volokh's analysis is he COMPLETELY ignores the mental impact to the victims of online harassment, he pretends like cyberstalking isn't even a thing. Free Speech absolutism without taking into account privacy interests, right of victims to be free from harassment, etc... is DANGEROUS. The result of Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism is that victims of malicious online harassment will NEVER be able to get legal recourse from their attackers, who can post any personal or embarrassing or private information with NO legal repercussion, maliciously, to ruin lives. This is apparently the world that Eugene Volokh wants.

    I'm sorry, but Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutist interpretation is simply dangerous for humanity and America, and is totally incorrect and one-sided.

    1. Perhaps your rants about Prof. Volokh would make more sense if they were appended to an article he wrote about 1st Amendment cases.

  16. Eugene, tell me, what is your solution for victims of online harassment? Commit suicide so your cyber-stalker's can enjoy their "Freedom of Speech"?

    You are a true rotten piece of shit.

    1. Eugene, tell me, what is your solution for victims of online harassment?

      Grow up and stop being a baby?

Please to post comments