Prof. Jonathan Turley on Blacklisting Artists for Their Political Positions

A very good post, I think, here; a brief excerpt:

"It is a great artistic loss for the Met and for opera." Those words from the Metropolitan Opera Manager Peter Gelb makes it sound like soprano Anna Netrebko has died or lost her voice in some accident. In reality, Netrebko was cancelled for failing to denounce Vladimir Putin. As with the criminalization of support for Putin in some countries, the termination of Netrebko is an attack on free speech. It is perfectly bizarre for the Met to stand against tyranny by attacking free speech, the very right that combats tyranny in all forms.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

All woke artists need to be cancelled.

[jimc5499]

Again, proof that the Liberal Socialists will accept no opinions other than their own mantra.

[wolfefan]

The irony of your comment appearing directly under David Behar's is duly noted.

[Seamus]

I wonder how many of those calling for the cancellation of Anna Netrebka think it was awful how people boycotted the Dixie Chicks, or blacklisted Paul Robeson.

[CJColucci]

I don't remember anyone of any consequence, or any group of any size or importance, "calling for the cancellation of Anna Netrebko." The Met, a private institution, seems to have done this on its own. As is its right.
But that this is its right doesn't mean others have to like it. I didn't like it when a couple of suits essentially took the Dixie Chicks off the radio. Paul Robeson was before my time, but if I were a fan I wouldn't have liked it if people with their hands on the cultural spigot cut him off.
Consumers themselves, however, can feel as they please and vote with their dollars. Sometimes, this means that artists I like stop getting work, since no movie company or TV station or concert promoter is obliged to lose money promoting artists who are box office poison. That's just the almighty market for you.

[GKHoffman]

Not a fair comparison. Ms. Netrebko is punished for not speaking out against a dictator who has many ways to get back at her, through her relatives in Russia or personally. Robeson, on the other hand, was an out and out Stalinist. That dictator has more innocent blood on his hands than Putin ever will, but Robeson praised him throughout. If any American entertainer deserved to be cancelled, it was Robeson.

[wolfefan]

Don't tell jimc5499 this. He thinks only liberal socialists are in favor of cancellation.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ovechkin, among others, is still playing hockey (as it should be) even though he’s a known friend of Putin. He’s got relatives back there including his wife and kid so he’s not gonna say much about this.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ovechkin has always been a jackass. He can have Putin and Russia. One more reason he will never be Sidney Crosby's equal.

[jimc5499]

Ovechkin also lost all of his endorsement deals because of this. I don't like the guy, but, that's only because I'm a Penguin fan. With that being said, I wonder when the cancel clowns are going to come after Malkin?

[Ridgeway]

Also, Ovechkin bears more than a passing resemblance to known Bond villain, Jaws.

[Queen Amalthea]

Of course Volokh felt somewhat differently back when it was leftist voices being 'cancelled.'

"It seems quite legitimate for consumers to withdraw their support of entertainers and to use their economic power to pressure others to withdraw their support."

https://volokh.com/posts/1137731877.shtml

[CommentMonkey]

Actually, the context of the earlier post was quite different. There, Prof. Volokh was observing that public figures who trade on their popularity to advance political views more or less assume the risk that public disapproval of those political views will damage their popularity. Note that he refers to "consumers" withdrawing support (although he cites examples of consumer opposition leading to lost jobs, etc.). No serious person thinks it is immoral for a consumer to decline to patronize an artist who expresses abhorrent political views.

Ms. Netrebko, on the other hand, was cancelled by her employer, and not for what she said about the attack on Ukraine but for failing to participate in compelled renunciation of her past support for Putin. Her statement regarding the war reflected full-throated opposition: “I am opposed to this senseless war of aggression, and I am calling on Russia to end this war right now . . ."

Of course the Met's patrons are free to boycott her shows despite this statement. And the Met is free to dismiss her if public outcry damages its reputation or bottom line. But none of that happened. Instead, the Met forced her to choose between her job and denouncing Putin specifically. Liberals - real ones - ought to be uncomfortable with this kind of gun-to-the-head enforcement of groupthink.

[Queen Amalthea]

Organizations are consumers of entertainer's labor right? And they can have values that should be respected (isn't that the idea behind Hobby Lobby)?

Also, recall that in commenting on the Dixie Chicks or Danny Glover getting 'canceled,' which involved organizations like record labels, record stations and MCI 'canceling' those entertainers EV found nothing to criticize.

The rest of your point is just about whether 'canceling' an entertainer for their commissions rather than omissions are morally distinct.

[Josh R]

I view the Met as an employer, not a consumer.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Even so, they don't have to wait to lose money with an unpopular entertainer on their payroll. They can make a judgment, as a private institution, that she might be poison to their brand. Your, CommentMonkey's, and Eugene's (presumably) effort to distinguish this case from the cancellation of the Dixie Chicks fails. If one is valid and not a repudiation of free speech, then the other isn't either. And vice versa.

On the other hand, it sounds like she did speak out against the war as Russian aggression, so not sure it makes a lot of sense to force her to personally denounce Putin, evil as he is, for reasons given by others. Given this info, I think they made a bad choice.

But I don't think anyone who whistled past the Dixie Chicks cancellation really has a leg to stand on (particularly including because probably half the people who criticized them at the time now pretend they were against the Iraq war too).

[Ridgeway]

I tend to agree with you, but one big difference is that the Dixie Chicks got in trouble because of things they said "in the now", while these Russians are being called to account for things they have done in the past. To make it more apples-to-apples, one of the Russians would have to do a big pro-Putin/Russia instagram post, or something along those lines, rather than just not denouncing/renounceing their previous positions and associations.

[Josh R]

Of course an employer can make the judgement that an entertainer poisons the brand. I just don't think it's morally comparable to a consumer boycott, notwithstanding both are the actions a private party.

[NOVA Lawyer]

Josh R,

But that's pretending that the problem the Dixie Chicks faced that we are talking about was consumers didn't buy their album. In fact, the only blacklisting in the Dixie Chicks case that fits that description is when radio stations pulled them when they determined that the Dixie Chicks were poisoning or would poison their brand. So, while not the employer of the Dixie Chicks, the radio stations seem a lot more like the Met itself than like the peopl buy tickets to artistic performances at the Met. Similarly, the Met seems a lot more like the radio stations themselves than like the people who buy Dixie Chick albums or radio stations' listeners.

If you're going to make a distinction, it can't be between employers and consumers. Nobody ever suggested listeners should have to listen to the Dixie Chicks any more than anyone is suggesting New Yorkers should buy tickets to see pro-Putin performers.

Any genuine distinction would have to be between employers and those who hire talent (albeit via licensing rather than employment arrangements). If the employment contract is what you're going to hang your hat on (rather than person who controls one important part of a person's livelihood through contract), that seems a thin reed elevating form over the substance of the relationship.

Why is canceling an employment contract substantively different, in this context, from a licensing contract which generates the royalties by which most performers make a significant portion of their "paycheck"?

Does the Met have to wait for empty seats before they respond to what they believe is consumer preference? Did radio stations wait to see a fall in listeners or ad revenue before they pulled the Dixie Chicks? Or, if it is every okay to respond to market pressures, is it "morally" acceptable to make a market assessment before you actually see your listeners, ad revenue, ticket sales, and/or donors dry up? Or must you wait and then what is the threshold? This seems a very squishy standard for identifying logs in others' eyes.

The only valid distinction I see is the reason I said I am leaning against the Met decision, it would appear that the performer at issue had denounced the war but the Met wanted a public denouncement with specific wording aimed at the evil man. In other words, it wasn't so much what they had recently said that changed the Met's tune, it was what they wouldn't say, whereas the cancelling of the Dixie Chicks was what they did say. (I agree with Ridgway that that is a valid distinction. Another valid distinction is that, while support for Putin and/or his war is morally reprehensible, opposition to the Iraq War was the morally superior position, though the crack at Bush was less laudable).

And I ask these questions to get at the heart of your opinion: Do you really think there is a substantive difference between the radio stations and the Met? It seems to me, the radio stations weren't engaged in a consumer boycott. They made a judgment that an entertainer (Dixie Chicks, now just Chicks) poisoned their brand. But you disagree?

[Longtobefree]

I thought we were finally at the point that the term "blacklist" is clearly racist and can no longer be used.

[CJColucci]

Tell that to Raymond Reddington.

[Longtobefree]

Actually, if it's all the same to you, I would rather not - - - - - - - -

[DaivdBehar]

That remark is woke. You need to be cancelled.

[branford]

I believe it would be horrible, and likely unlawful, if the Met "cancelled" Netrebko simply because she was Russian. It would be similarly inappropriate if the Met was a state owned and run institution.

However, Netrebko, along with some other Russian artists and athletes, have been quite comfortable associating with and defending Putin in the past. Private institutions, whether it be opera houses, orchestras, sports leagues, or corporations, have commercial interests affected by their reputation, and internal interests of staff and other talent, that must be considered as a functioning ongoing enterprise. These organization also have their free speech rights and interests.

Businesses speak about and institute sanctions all the time relating to political topics, whether it be voting rights, gay marriage, gun rights, abortion, etc. In fact, taking political positions has increasingly become the norm, particularly among artists and athletes. Netrebko is really nothing unusual or particularly concerning. Moreover, unlike most others facing cancellation, she was given the opportunity to easily and quickly erase her past issues by distancing herself from a psychopathic tyrant engaged in an unprovoked war, an individual so loathsome and dangerous he's managed to unite most of the left and right of this country, and the whole of the western world. She chose poorly, is not victim, and I will lose no sleep over it.

[Cal Cetín]

"she was given the opportunity to easily and quickly erase her past issues by distancing herself from a psychopathic tyrant engaged in an unprovoked war"

You mean, she could issue a statement saying Putin was waging a senseless war of aggression? (see below)

[freedom121]

I know nothing of Netrebko's politics.
But does she have friends or relatives left in Russia? Would she be putting them in danger by saying making statements that would not meet Putin's approval? Is her stepping back a way of getting out of the light and avoiding politics and risking the lives of people who live under a dictator?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Cultural marxists and the left don't care about free speech, they only care about THEIR speech being free.

If it BLM terrorists or some weird blue haired feminist, we get the lecture that "free speech is supposed to make you uncomfortable....blocking streets is part of civil disobedience....rioting is a form of social change."

But if some truckers show up in DC and make an elitist's commute half an hour longer it is all the sudden "this must end NOW!....send out the national guard!....who are these people and what makes them think they can violate the law!"

Just look at the blue checks on the twatter today and see how much foaming at the mouth hatred they have for truckers slowing down traffic in the DC metro area. A few even advocate violence and property destruction saying it would be justified in this case.

Maybe libertarian lawyers haven't been able to see the pattern yet....

[Cal Cetín]

At first I thought they'd nailed a real-life Putin apologist, then I saw this in Turley's post:

"According to media reports, Met officials 'made several attempts to convince Netrebko, who has made statements critical of the war, to rebuke Putin but failed to persuade the singer.'...

"Netrebko has publicly stated that 'I am opposed to this senseless war of aggression, and I am calling on Russia to end this war right now to save all of us. We need peace right now.'"

These people at the Met don't know how to take yes for an answer.

"Yeah, we know you said that Putin was waging a senseless war of aggression, but we want you to *really* denounce him! Say it like you mean it! Say that Putin has only one ball like Hitler. You won't? Get out of here, you Putin apologist!"

[Cal Cetín]

Imagine they started picking on a Chinese singer with a "Free Tibet" bumper sticker. "We don't think you're vehemently criticizing the Chinese government enough - I want you to denounce harder!"

[Cal Cetín]

Do you think Putin will be grateful? "She called me a senseless aggressor, but bless her heart, she didn't go further than - she didn't say anything *really* insulting. I suppose she's OK, then."

[jimc5499]

Tell that to Daryl Morey and Enes Kanter.

[branford]

It's a little more complicated than that.

[branford]

[Arrg.. no edit function]

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a39326167/anna-netrebko-russian-soprano-met-opera-fired-putin/

I also assume there was a lot going on behind the scenes.

[Cal Cetín]

"In 2008, she received the People’s Artist of Russia honor from Putin."

And then the Met cancelled her? Apparently not.

"And in 2014, the singer was photographed holding a Novorussian flag—which represents a Russian separatist region in Ukraine."

And the Met cancelled her? No, apparently not even then.

"Netrebeko also donated about $18,000 to an opera house in Donetsk, a Ukrainian city controlled by pro-Russia separatists."

O, horror, horror, horror, heart nor tongue/can nor conceive nor name thee!

'Netrebko has also announced she will be suspending all upcoming performances—not just at the Met. "I am opposed to this senseless war of aggression and I am calling on Russia to end this war right now, to save all of us. We need peace right now," she said. "This is not a time for me to make music and perform. I have therefore decided to take a step back from performing for the time being. It is an extremely difficult decision for me, but I know that my audience will understand and respect this decision."'

Wait, so she cancelled *herself*?

Why can't the Met release a statement that her "senseless war of aggression" remark was sufficiently anti-Putin and that she'd be welcome back any time?

[branford]

There's more with a simply Google search.

Again, I imagine the knowledge and discussions behind the scenes were more detailed and heated than the articles portray.

[Cal Cetín]

Well, I found basically the same information in Wikipedia and the NY Post.

Did I miss the part about her eating Ukrainian babies?

[Cal Cetín]

But, yes, there must have been something more behind the scenes if they professed to be dissatisfied with the criticisms she's already uttered.

[Cal Cetín]

OK then, how many extra dollops of anti-Putinism does she have to put on her denunciation sundae?

[branford]

People are trying to differentiate Putin with all Russian people.

She probably just need to repudiate *Putin* by name, not just the war.

[Cal Cetín]

That's slicing the salami pretty thin.

She literally said "senseless war of aggression." Will Putin see this and say, "oh, well, at least she didn't criticize me personally, only my war."

[Jimmy the Dane]

Yet these are the same people who will give every anti-American artist a platform to piss on our flag and shit on the country.

If you needed a reminder, these people are not your friends.

[Doug Heffernan]

I seem to remember previously reading on this blog (and/or the main reason website) about the concept of freedom of association.

I don't know much about it, but I think that it has something to do with the constitution and/or the first amendment. The meaning is something like that [we] have the freedom to associate with others who have similar political, religious, or cultural beliefs.

Of course, labeling freedom of association as blacklisting makes it sound a whole lot scarier and much less "constitutiony".

The Met seems to be some sort of private entity, not a government body. Perhaps they draw the line at associating with supporters of murderous thugs. Everyone, whether they be an an individual or group, draws the line somewhere.

Usually the right supports this idea, such as to support bakers of cakes. But apparently the right in general has great fondness for Putin due to religious, racial, and anti-gay reasons. They realize that given the demographics of this country, purity about religion, race, marriage and anti-gayness may one day need to be achieved through something other than a democratic process.

So, they can't draw the line at methods like those used by Putin.

[Cal Cetín]

"supporters of murderous thugs"

Again, the singer's "senseless war of aggression" remark managed to conceal her Putin-support fairly well.

[GKHoffman]

I was under the impression that blacklisting the Hollywood Ten (and others) for their Communist pasts was considered a bad thing. So it's just a salutary exercise of freedom of association! Thanks for clearing that up for us.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

God, I have listened to and admired Anna Netrebko for years. She ought to condemn the cretin Putin, but if she doesn't I'll still listen to her. Ever watched her and Elina Garanca in Verdi's _Rigoletto_ quartet? Jeez, she's an angel. What a voice. Oh, and the scene is one of seduction and betrayal. So beautiful!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xDkYkOHj20&ab_channel=Luceafer74

[Holden C]

It is absolutely disgusting and appalling that the so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyber-stalking and online harassment. In fact, he is trying to make victims of cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment even more vulnerable by trying to strike down all legislation that would protect them.

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 doesn't understand the nature of the internet and should not be opining dangerous statements on "Free Speech" when he hasn't experienced truly malicious cyber-stalking himself.
His life experience is not adequate to be opining about "Free Speech" and online abuse, since he has not experienced online abuse and does not really understand the damaging (and permanent) potential of internet 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 cyber-stalkers 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. In essence, 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 cyber-harassment 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 EXTREMELY dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.

Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment 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 ulterior agenda apparently, 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.
You see, it's simple. Eugene advocates for no internet regulation, and ignores online abuse. This benefits Google and Big Tech, who don't have to pay fines for not removing harmful and abusive content. They save money, and perhaps pay Eugene kick-backs behind the scenes.
Eugene has publicly admitted that his "Google is a publisher" paper is funded by Google. Way to go for impartiality. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, Eugene. Of course the paper magically "concludes" that Google is protected by First Amendment. Geez, did Eugene expect all of us to be blind?

It is VERY highly likely that Eugene Volokh gets paid by Google and Big Tech behind the scenes. That's why all of his papers "happens" to fall on view that Big Tech should not be regulated, ever. This is clearly wrong, and dangerous.

Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact. This is my protected "Free Speech." You have no legal action against me, even if you wanted to.

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.

Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyber-stalkers 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. In Eugene's dangerous world, victims of cyber-harassment cannot ever get relief from their attackers, ever. That's how Eugene wants it to be, unless of course, the victim is himself.

[72dbb09]

Please get back on your meds.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Yep, I would suggest a regimen of Xanax. Or something stronger.

[Holden C]

It is absolutely disgusting and appalling that the so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyber-stalking and online harassment. In fact, he is trying to make victims of cyber-stalking and cyber-harassment even more vulnerable by trying to strike down all legislation that would protect them.

It is highly likely that Eugene Volokh is taking bribes from Big Tech companies like Google and the Electronic Frontier Foundation to peddle de-regulation for Tech and a lack of protection for victims of online abuse and online harassment. Eugene doesn't care if kids are committing suicide over online bullying, for him, it's all just a theoretical academic exercise.

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". He completely ignores the reality that mentally ill sociopaths, stalkers, and harassers purposely use the Internet to try to stalk and ruin lives of innocent victims.

Eugene Volokh doesn't understand the nature of the internet and should not be opining dangerous statements on "Free Speech" when he hasn't experienced truly malicious cyber-stalking himself.
His life experience is not adequate to be opining about "Free Speech" and online abuse, since he has not experienced online abuse and does not really understand the damaging (and permanent) potential of internet speech.

Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely and purposefully ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers 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. In essence, 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 cyber-harassment 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."

You can see that many of Eugene Volokh's papers are funded by Google (https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/should-googles-search-results-be-protected-by-the-first-amendment/257468/). He is not a unbiased legal analyst, but rather someone likely to be taking direct bribes from Google and Big Tech to pander incorrect and dangerous Constitutional interpretations that falsely argue for lack of regulation for Big Tech. In return, Big Tech saves money and pays Eugene Volokh a kickback.

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

Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment 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 ulterior agenda apparently, 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.

You see, it's simple. Eugene advocates for no internet regulation, and ignores online abuse. This benefits Google and Big Tech, who don't have to pay fines for not removing harmful and abusive content. They save money, and perhaps pay Eugene kick-backs behind the scenes.

Eugene has publicly admitted that his "Google is a publisher" paper is funded by Google. Way to go for impartiality. Don't bite the hand that feeds you, Eugene. Of course the paper magically "concludes" that Google is protected by First Amendment. Geez, did Eugene expect all of us to be blind?

It is VERY highly likely that Eugene Volokh gets paid by Google and Big Tech behind the scenes. That's why all of his papers "happens" to fall on view that Big Tech should not be regulated, ever. This is clearly wrong, and dangerous.

Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact. This is my protected "Free Speech." You have no legal action against me, even if you wanted to.

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.
Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyber-stalkers 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. In Eugene's dangerous world, victims of cyber-harassment cannot ever get relief from their attackers, ever. That's how Eugene wants it to be, unless of course, the victim is himself.

Volokh, you have no legal action against me because I'm using the First Amendment that you fiercely advocate against you to expose the truth.

[Shamie Ervin iv]

Wherever you're from, HC [a nom de plume, of course], your country must not enjoy First Amendment protections as we do in the USA. If you write something truthful on the net, but uncomplimentary, about a person here in the USA and publish it to the whole world, it deserves 1A protection. I published about a thieving, trespassing scoundrel in my neighborhood, and twice she charged me with cyberstalking. And twice, the cases were permanently dismissed. It was bad enough having to engage lawyers, make bond, have a goofy judge talk to you like you were a flea-bitten cur, and listen to the scoundrel get up on the stand and lie under oath.
If you get bad-mouthed on the net here in the USA, there are plenty of remedies if the bad-mouthing crosses the line. I am thankful to Prof. Volokh for his legal treatises which explain the law in this area. Those treatises enlightened the judges and prosecutors in my state.

[Holden C]

Eugene Volokh, what is your solution for victims if they are being stalked, harassed, doxed, and targeted maliciously over the internet by mentally-ill individuals trying to expose personal information to cause them harm?

It's a simple question. It's a very common crime that affects a lot of people. What is your solution? Propose a solution.

[Squirrelloid]

Failing to condemn is a far cry from actively advocating. I might at least theoretically support a boycott of someone actively advocating for Putin (I'm not convinced Putin has crossed threshhold necessary yet, although I feel like Xi Jinping certainly has), I certainly would support a boycott for people actively advocating in support of leaders or causes which are truly abhorent (ie, advocacy for Hitler or the Holocaust being the obvious 'this is boycott worthy' endpoint). But simply failing to condemn? That's nonsense. Compelling political speech is substantially different - a matter of kind, not degree - from disassociating with abhorrent speech.