News

Recent Bylined Articles

The Supreme Court should reject attempts by Florida, Texas to control social media platforms,
The Hill

Why university presidents find it hard to punish advocating genocide − college free speech codes are both more and less protective than the First Amendment, The Conversation

The First Amendment does not protect messages posted on social media platforms…The companies that own the platforms can – and do – remove, promote or limit the distribution of any posts according to corporate policies. But all that might soon change.

Read the article


There’s no ‘disinformation’ exception to the First Amendment, The Hill

Misinformation and disinformation retain the basic characteristics of speech. Unless they fall into one of very few exceptions, they are protected from censorship under the First Amendment.

Read the article


Supreme Court to consider giving First Amendment protections to social media posts, The Conversation

The First Amendment does not protect messages posted on social media platforms…The companies that own the platforms can – and do – remove, promote or limit the distribution of any posts according to corporate policies. But all that might soon change.

Read the article


Jack Smith’s requested gag order, like judicial orders restricting Trump’s speech, seeks to balance constitutional rights, The Conversation

In each of former President Donald Trump’s four indictments, he has been allowed to stay out of jail before his trial so long as he abides by certain conditions commonly applied to most people accused of crimes in the U.S.

Read the article


Jack Smith’s Trump indictment goes where free speech ends and criminal conspiracy begins, The Hill

Before Monday’s additional state indictment in Georgia, former President Trump stood accused in federal court of criminal conspiracy to subvert the 2020 presidential election results.

Read the article


His Words Were So Terrifying the Supreme Court Got Involved, The Daily Beast

It is dicey constitutional business to criminalize words. The courts have done so only in exceptional circumstances, but on April 19, 2023, the Supreme Court will re-examine the constitutional boundaries for criminalizing words that terrorize. On that date, the Court will hear argument in Counterman v Coloradothe case focuses on the true threats doctrine and the right of speakers to invoke First Amendment protection for speech that puts the target in fear of life or limb.

Read the article


What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US, The Conversation

Elon Musk has claimed he believes in free speech no matter what. He calls it a bulwark against tyranny in America and promises to reconstruct Twitter, which he now owns, so that its policy on free expression “matches the law.” Yet his grasp of the First Amendment – the law that governs free speech in the U.S. – appears to be quite limited. And he’s not alone.

Read the article


There is no First Amendment right to violenceNew York Daily News

In his farewell address to Congress, Rep. Adam Kinzinger chastised his Republican colleagues for justifying the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as “legitimate political discourse.” As the Jan. 6 Committee report made clear, while the message of Trump supporters might be protected political speech, the medium used by the insurrectionists — violent attacks on people and property — stripped the message of its constitutional shield.

Read the article


Commentary: Here’s what diversity is about, Justice ThomasTimes Union

Dear Justice Thomas,

I am a professor at Syracuse University. I teach argumentation, advocacy, and First Amendment theory. During oral arguments in the affirmative action cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against the University of North Carolina and Harvard University you are quoted saying, “I’ve heard the word ‘diversity’ quite a few times, but I don’t have a clue what it means.”

Read the article


The Anti-Abortion Movement’s Attempt to Criminalize Abortion SpeechMs. Magazine

Censorship is a dirty word in America, and so it should be. It imposes silence upon speech, creating an empty void which instead should be filled with debate and discussion. As anti-abortion lawmakers continue to draft legislation to limit abortion access, opponents of new bans are horrified by the sweeping prohibitions lurking within—such as proposals that censor discussion on the topic, or worse, throw those who dare to speak behind bars.

Read the article


The First Amendment vs. New York’s Second Amendment restrictions, New York Daily News

On June 23, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, and thereby invalidated a New York public carry law dating back to 1905. According to the court, the 1905 law set up unacceptably strict criteria for approval of a gun license in the state. The shockwaves resounding from the decision put the government on high alert, and within weeks Gov. Hochul signed replacement legislation to forestall what many worried would be a rush to legally purchase and carry guns in New York.

Read the article


Limiting commercial speech would be way to fight gun manufacturers, Times Union

In a recent article, “Gun sellers’ message to Americans: Man up,” the New York Times wrote, “Gun companies have spent the last two decades scrutinizing their market and refocusing their message….The sales pitch — rooted in self-defense, machismo and an overarching sense of fear — has been remarkably successful.” That’s correct, but legislatures might have an opportunity to reduce or even eliminate such tactics, which as the article put it, “woo millions of men who liked to buy gear that made them feel like soldiers and the police.”

Read the article


Abortion Rights Advocates Can Still Count on the First Amendment, Ms. Magazine

If (when) federal constitutional protections for abortions fall, each individual state will have the power to craft its own restrictions on the procedure. Still, the First Amendment might be able to offer a bit of cover to those who seek an abortion as a life choice. Justice Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization even offers a blueprint.

Read the article


Depp v Heard: The jury’s burden, The Hill

Millions of dollars were at stake in the voyeuristic defamation case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. But if either of them believed this action was going to salvage their reputations and vindicate them, they were sadly mistaken. They were also mistaken if they believed this was going to be a cake walk for either of them. In the United States, successful defamation suits commenced by celebrities are difficult to win — ask Sarah Palin.

Read the article


What many on the right get wrong about the First Amendment, The Washington Post

Free speech — and the First Amendment — are major topics of debate in 2022. From former president Barack Obama labeling himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist,” to debates over whether Florida’s legislature punished Disney for exercising free speech by revoking the company’s special improvement district, to conservative howls about censorship on social media, it seems that everyone has a take.

Read the article


Recent Interviews and Quotes

Lynn’s piece What the First Amendment really says – 4 basic principles of free speech in the US” was selected and quoted as an essential read by editors of The Conversation: Giuliani claims the First Amendment lets him lie – 3 essential reads.”

Read the article


Lynn was consulted and quoted in Is Montana’s Crazed TikTok Ban a Total Waste of Time? Probably,” Lifewire

“Congress has gotten its hand slapped before (by a less conservative Supreme Court) for trying to regulate the internet.”

Read the article


Lynn was consulted and quoted in Montana lawmakers vote to completely ban TikTok in the state,” CNN Business

“Only in exceptional circumstances will content-based restrictions be constitutionally permissible under the First Amendment.”

Read the article


Global Connections Television


All News KCBS Radio


Lynn was consulted and quoted in First Amendment Confrontation May Loom in Post-Roe Fight,” The New York Times

“If the anti-abortion folks can speak to patients, can’t pro-choice folks counsel women who seek an abortion?”

Read the article


Lynn was quoted in Depp Trial Exposes Risks to Media in Airing #MeToo Accusations,” The New York Times

“The fact that actual malice is a such a high bar, and that he was able to overcome that, is kind of shocking,” said Lynn Greenky, a professor who teaches First Amendment issues at Syracuse University.

Read the article


When Freedom Speaks

When Freedom Speaks was highlighted in What to Read for Banned Books Week from The Chicago Blog

Read the blog post


When Freedom Speaks was highlighted in Publishing Perspectives.

Read the article