Today in Supreme Court History: March 16, 1925

3/16/25: Pierce v. Society of Sisters argued.

Comments

[Holden C]

I just received the following message from Eugene Volokh

"If you’d like to criticize my position on, say, harassment law or restraining orders or libel or what have you on comment threads for posts that relate to that, be my guest. Do not, however, keep posting repetitive rants, especially when they are off-topic (as on the Russian sanctions post). They will be deleted.

Eugene Volokh"

It's ironic that Eugene Volokh talks about "Free Speech" so publicly and is against the deletion of any data, however malicious, about individuals online, yet HE WANTS to actively censor my posts ABOUT him.

Talk about a double standard.

Your views are dangerous for Americans Eugene, because they legalize cyberstalking and leave victims no recourse for these harms.

I will criticize and expose you all I want until you publicly speak out and apologize for harming victims of cyberstalking and cyberharassment.

Delete all you want. I will keep posting, exercising my precious First Amendment rights.

Don't even try to scare me with my IP address.

[Queen Amalthea]

Holden is a loon on the level of Behar, but there's a kernel of a point here. Many libertarian and/or free speech absolutists like to push for rules which would make most institutions less functional for those they serve, but only for public institutions. Government parks, schools, forums, etc., should, they tell us, have to go by these rules but private institutions, including the ones they run, do not (well, unless they ban Trump then we can change our principles!). One wonders if the point is to hamstring government institutions so people have to more and more turn to private ones? Sadly, that's not going to be as much of an option for many less well off and situated folks, they can't escape to private schools, private recreational enterprises, private forums as readily and will be stuck with the less functional public alternatives...

[David Nieporent]

One wonders if the point is to hamstring government institutions so people have to more and more turn to private ones

You're going all Lathrop here. Nobody sane wonders that. This nonsensical conspiracy theory is belied by the fact that it has been the ACLU and other liberal groups that have established this legal regime, while conservatives were often willing to allow government censorship.

[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 and to go unpunished.

Eugene is basically fighting for a world where online stalkers can continue to harass and stalk victims without legal consequences. He makes money off of this, of course. He doesn't want the general public to know that he gets kick backs from Big Tech.

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.

[Dan Schiavetta]

My dog has more self awareness than you do.

[Cal Cetín]

There's an excellent book by Paula Abrams on the case, *Cross purposes : Pierce v. Society of Sisters and the struggle over compulsory public education* (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009).

The anti-private-school bill was promoted by the Ku Klux Klan and by influential groups of Freemasons (there was a bit of overlap).

The hero of the story is Justice James McReynolds, who had also struck down the German-language ban in private schools in other states.

[Cal Cetín]

Of course, Masonic dissenters protested the actions of their fellow-Masons as a betrayal of *true* Masonry, if you want to hang your hat on that.

[Queen Amalthea]

You know Pierce and Meyers are the parents of Griswold and Roe, right?

[Ridgeway]

I partially agree, and think Meyer was wrongly decided. Some idiot school board will probably revisit it soon when they try to ban Russian.

Pierce was a victim of underdeveloped 1st Amendment law. I think under current jurisprudence, the result would be the same, but the reasoning would be based on 1st amendment freedom of religion principles, rather than an amorphous "right to raise your children as you see fit" liberty interest.

[Cal Cetín]

Also benefiting from the decision - a nonsectarian private military academy. Thus, trying to spin the decision as about the First Amendment would leave the military academy out in the cold.

[Syd Henderson]

I noticed that. Kennedy seems to have missed that the military academy was part of the case.