Brian L. Frye
@brianlfrye.bsky.social
3.8K followers 720 following 1.5K posts

Dogecoin Professor of Law & Grifting. Securities artist & conceptual lawyer. Legal scholarship's #1 plagiarism apologist. Maybell Romero’s +1. https://linktr.ee/brianlfrye

Brian Lawrence Frye is an American independent filmmaker, artist, and law professor. His work includes Our Nixon, for which he served as a producer with his ex-wife, Penny Lane. His film Oona's Veil is included in the permanent collection of the Whitney Museum of Art, and his writings on film and art have appeared in The New Republic, Film Comment, Cineaste, Millennium Film Journal, and The Village Voice. Filmmaker Magazine listed him as one of the 25 New Faces of Independent Film 2012. He currently is the Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, where he teaches courses on civil procedure, intellectual property, copyright, and nonprofit organizations. Frye is currently a visiting professor at Tulane University Law School where his spouse, Maybell Romero, is the McGlinchey Stafford Associate Professor of Law. He is a vocal critic of the bar exams and refers to his course on professional responsibility as "Managing the Legal Cartel". .. more

Law 31%
Business 20%
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

brianlfrye.bsky.social
For better or worse, the First Amendment is for assholes, or it’s for no one. Freedom of respectful speech is no free speech at all.
drewharwell.com
Fake AI videos mocking dead celebrities are going viral. We talked to their families, and they're horrified.

We break down OpenAI's Sora 2 and the moral and legal problems of "synthetic resurrection."

Gift link: wapo.st/4nNKzd3 w/ @tatumhunter.bsky.social

Reposted by Brian L. Frye

drewharwell.com
Fake AI videos mocking dead celebrities are going viral. We talked to their families, and they're horrified.

We break down OpenAI's Sora 2 and the moral and legal problems of "synthetic resurrection."

Gift link: wapo.st/4nNKzd3 w/ @tatumhunter.bsky.social

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Objective test for meaning of statement?

brianlfrye.bsky.social
A statement can’t be defamatory (under the 1a) unless it’s a false statement of fact.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Godwin’s law says it’s inevitable.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
The key Q to ask is whether the statement is falsifiable. He could still have the opinion that Drake “is a pedophile” even if Drake could prove no sexual contact with a minor. It’s just a slur, not an assertion of true fact.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
As a consequence, context matters. So, if reasonable listeners would understand it as a diss track, rather than statements to be taken literally, then even more room for hyperbole.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
The key is “as a factual matter.” So long as the statement can reasonably be understood as an opinion it isn’t defamatory, especially because Drake is a public figure.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

brianlfrye.bsky.social
The landlordism is wild.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Headed to @MaybellRomero’s first Bastard Film Encounter tonight!
conradhackett.bsky.social
Has anything great happened in your life because of social media?

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Sure. I’m in favor of citation. I just don’t think it should be mandatory. We should cite out of love, not obligation.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Thanks! Yes, I wrote about it here, among other places. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... The upshot is that I think the possibility of helping readers is great, but doesn’t justify making attribution mandatory.
Plagiarize This Paper
Plagiarism is the ultimate academic crime. But why? This essay reflects on academic plagiarism norms and concludes that they are not only unjustified, but also
papers.ssrn.com

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Marmite. By the spoon.
faineg.bsky.social
What foods do you love that you fully acknowledge make you a pervert for loving them?
faineg.bsky.social
What foods do you love that you fully acknowledge make you a pervert for loving them?

Reposted by Mark A. Lemley

brianlfrye.bsky.social
If we had conspired to make it happen, it wouldn’t have worked. That’s the secret.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
All of the above! And more. It’s a gestalt.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
You’d be surprised how lacking in rigor most 70 page articles are. It takes a lot of hot air to pump up 10 pages of content that much.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Indeed. It would be interesting to reflect on how it became the norm. The cynic in me suspects that part of the answer is that it makes it hard for practitioners & scholars in other disciplines to compete for prestige law journal placement.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
I don’t even pull it out of the holster.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
Because that’s what we tell our students legal scholarship is supposed to look like.

brianlfrye.bsky.social
So then I ask them, if this essay were submitted to your law journal, would you accept it? They look puzzled. And then say no. Why not? Too short, not enough footnotes, too colloquial. So, why do law professors write long, boring articles with lots of footnotes?

brianlfrye.bsky.social
True. But it’s our fault, or at we least we create the conditions that maintain the norm. A story: In my seminar, I assign Fred Rodell’s 1936 essay “Goodbye to Law Reviews.” The students love it. “So true! All the same problems still exist today! Too long! Too many footnotes!”
corinneblalock.bsky.social
it may be hacky to comment on, but seriously, law review articles are too damn long. trying to read two articles today and they are 71 and 89 pages 😭

brianlfrye.bsky.social
“She builds excitement.”

Reposted by Brian L. Frye

corinneblalock.bsky.social
it may be hacky to comment on, but seriously, law review articles are too damn long. trying to read two articles today and they are 71 and 89 pages 😭