Margot
@margotkaminski.bsky.social
4.8K followers 410 following 58 posts
Professor at Colorado Law. Data privacy, AI, speech.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Reposted by Margot
jtlg.bsky.social
Listeners' Choices Online is now online. I hope you will choose to listen to it!

james.grimmelmann.net/files/articl...
james.grimmelmann.net
margotkaminski.bsky.social
Can't wait for your reporting on this.
Reposted by Margot
aselbst.bsky.social
The AI Act is a long and confusing piece of legislation that relies heavily on other EU laws and institutions. If you’re a US lawyer who doesn’t have a background in EU law, then even if you read it there’s probably a bunch you missed. Good news! We’ve got a paper for you!
margotkaminski.bsky.social
"In the race to figure out just what AI systems are good for, our kids should not be treated as experiments." The fight to preserve AI regulation and protect children isn't over thehill.com/opinion/tech... with Prof. Jones in The Hill
thehill.com
margotkaminski.bsky.social
I'm honored to have received the Sandgrund Award @ Colorado Law for Best Consumer Rights Work, for Regulating the Risks of AI (published 2023, available here papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....)

Hopefully that consumer rights work doesn't immediately get preempted.
Regulating the Risks of AI
Companies and governments now use Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) in a wide range of settings. But using AI leads to well-known risks that arguably present chall
papers.ssrn.com
Reposted by Margot
alexabdo.bsky.social
NEW JOB: The Knight Institute (@knightcolumbia.org) is looking for a staff attorney to join us for a two-year position. It's an extremely busy time for the First Amendment, and we could use some more hands on deck!

knightcolumbia.org/page/staff_a...
| Knight First Amendment Institute
knightcolumbia.org
margotkaminski.bsky.social
A great and substantive two days of Freedom of Expression Scholars Conference @yaleisp.bsky.social . Panel on the substance, scope, and methods of the Internet Law Canon was a highlight (with Balkin, Reid @chup.blakereid.org, Weiland @morganweiland.bsky.social) @yalelawschool-yls.bsky.social
Reposted by Margot
heidikitrosser.bsky.social
Tax ppl can speak to the statutory and regulatory questions. But as a 1st Amendment person, I can tell you that this is wildly lawless as a constitutional matter. Govt subsidies & exemptions are not free-for-alls to impose viewpoint based restrictions. Plus this is a nesting doll of violations - 1/2
margotkaminski.bsky.social
Ooh! I got cited in the en banc right-to-record case (Project Veritas) in the Ninth Circuit, along with other great scholars in that space. It's encouraging when hard work gets read and used. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/op...
cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
margotkaminski.bsky.social
"Poorly designed algorithms used to make consequential decisions... lead to a loss of trust in government and costly redesign."

Deirdre Mulligan, making the case that the responsible AI governance in government is both good policy and better financial decisionmaking.
margotkaminski.bsky.social
From Gods to Google is now out in the Yale Law Journal

Following First Amendment challenges to tech regulations? We tell a different story of the caselaw: not (just) Lochnerean but the output of this Court’s religious speakers cases www.yalelawjournal.org/feature/from...
From Gods to Google
The First Amendment is a well-known barrier to sensible technology regulation. While scholars blame the Court’s libertarian turn, we offer another explanation: the Court’s solicitude for religious spe...
www.yalelawjournal.org
margotkaminski.bsky.social
I'm just now reading the Fifth Circuit opinion in Free Speech Coalition. It's another example of From Gods to Google: use of NIFLA to find unconstitutional a warning label requirement. (Albeit a probably unconstitutional requirement, for other reasons. But this is how bad precedent gets made.)
margotkaminski.bsky.social
Just presented "From Gods to Google" @gwlaw.bsky.social, which tracks the Court's religious speaker cases and the (surprising?) arsenal they create for tech companies, especially in lower courts. SCOTUS faces a First Amendment impasse of its own making. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
From Gods to Google
<p>The First Amendment has become a significant barrier to sensible technology regulation. The conventional explanation for this is the Court’s deregulatory tur
papers.ssrn.com
margotkaminski.bsky.social
And Sorrell cited nowhere in TikTok
margotkaminski.bsky.social
The last thing I'll say about TikTok (for now) is that it is an absolute boon to data privacy laws facing First Amendment challenges. One big move: SCOTUS distinguishes between a government interest in preventing harmful "data collection," and a government interest in regulating speech.
margotkaminski.bsky.social
Turner I & II: the new [scrutiny] law of the internet. You could see this coming post-Moody v. NetChoice; this cements it.