Larry Lessig does a good deed.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Bluessky Posts- Jotwell Corporate: Andrew F. Tuch, Private Equity, Retail Investors, and Litigation Risk, JOTWELL (May 20, 2026) (reviewing Ludovic Phalippou & William J. Magnuson, Private Equity, Public Capital, and Litigation Risk, available at SSRN (Nov. 14, 2025)), corp.jotwell.com/private-equi.... May 20, 2026 Jotwell
- Trump has figured out the secret to getting away with astounding criminality: In modern politics it's not the crime that gets you, it's the cover-up. Other than the #epstein files, MAGA doesn't do cover-ups; all the financial thieving is loud and proud. May 20, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Any DOJ settlement that gives the President a dollar -- or a direct material benefit -- is a plain-as-day violation of the Presidential Emoluments Clause: "The President shall not receive ... any other Emolument from the United States, or any of [the states]." Art II, S.1, cl. 7. May 20, 2026 Jed H. Shugerman
- It cannot bind, because you cannot rely to your detriment on a promise you make to yourself. The document itself is an unconstitutional violation of the presidential oath. May 19, 2026 James Grimmelmann
- Historian here this is literally about gutting the Reconstruction amendments especially the consequential 14th amendment piece by piece. May 19, 2026 Manisha Sinha
Recent Comments
- KK Ho on Introduction
- Michael on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Mulalira Faisal Umar on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Michael on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
- Just me on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 51 other subscribers
Pingback: Obsidian Wings
Did Al Franken help Lessig on that one? Because the analysis technique, i.e. interpreting comments hyper-literally, is the same.
Franken, for example, does not agree that Cheesburger Moore implies in his movie that the bin laden family was given special treatment by the Bush administration. Why? He argues that such an accusation was never actually “stated” in the movie. Thus, he can avoid the substance of the issue, the factual validity of the crockumentary. It smacks of Clinton’s hyper-technical denial of sexual “relations” with Monica.
In 4th grade, our teachers start into stylistic concepts: theme, implication, tone. That’s why only 3rd graders find this type of analysis accurate. They also think they aren’t disobeying mom by “touching” an annoyed little brother as long as they poke shirt as opposed to exposed skin.
Bill calls a spade a spade. The ad was an attack on the US and its policies. For those of us who passed the 4th grade, we don’t need things written in bold capitals to read between the lines.
Is “simon didn’t say” really the pinnacle of liberal thought these days? Well, Lessig is a lawyer….
—–