A short thread--if you've litigated/defended the First Amendment for any length of time, you know that there is always an issue ("emergency") of the day that puts creative minds to work trying to figure out ways to grant gov. more power over speech/expression. /1

The creative minds who sought to support/defend university speech codes tried hard to extend the definitions of "fighting words" or the scope of anti-harassment regulations to ban subjectively-defined "hate speech." They largely failed. /2

The drug war, which has exacted a huge cost in civil liberties, has also deeply impacted the First Amendment. Does Employment Division v. Smith come out the same way if it's not dealing with Peyote? Is Morse v. Frederick decided the same way without a reference to marijuana? /3

Now bipartisan anger at Big Tech is leading creative minds to try to jam square legal pegs into round holes to justify expanding state power. Justice Thomas is the latest, with his musings about "common carriers" and public accommodations. /4 https://time.com/5953715/clarence-thomas-tech-free-speech/

Expanding state power to regulate expression will only raise the stakes of federal politics (the last thing we need), introduce greater levels of coercion into American life, and inhibit the marketplace of ideas. It's a bad idea. /end