Suggestions
Berin Szóka
President & Founder at TechFreedom
Berin Szóka is the President and Founder of TechFreedom, a think tank dedicated to technology law and policy.12 He established TechFreedom in 2010, bringing with him a wealth of experience in the field of technology and law.1
Professional Background
Before founding TechFreedom, Szóka held several notable positions:
- Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress & Freedom Foundation14
- Practiced telecommunications and Internet law at Latham & Watkins LLP and Lawler Metzger Milkman & Keeney, LLC1
- Clerked for a federal district judge1
Education and Expertise
Szóka is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law.1 His background combines legal expertise with a deep understanding of technology policy issues. He is known for his dynamic mixture of high-minded motivation and technical proficiency in the legal domain.3
TechFreedom and Its Mission
As the President of TechFreedom, Szóka leads a Washington, D.C.-based think tank that focuses on analyzing policy and legal questions raised by technological progress.5 The organization has been studying the legal aspects of the digital revolution since its inception.6
Public Presence
Szóka is active in public discourse on technology policy issues. He contributes to various platforms and organizations, including:
- The Federalist Society, where he serves as a contributor4
- Open to Debate, where he participates as a debater on technology policy topics5
- Twitter, where he describes himself as a "tech lawyer @TechFreedom" and a "wanderer"7
Berin Szóka's work at TechFreedom and his contributions to the field of technology law and policy have established him as a significant voice in discussions surrounding the legal and societal implications of technological advancements.
Highlights
More nonsense. X faces liability under the 🇪🇺 Digital Services Act for (1) deceiving users by selling blue ✔️ for "verified" users (2) inadequate ad transparency, and (3) researcher access to data. The Commission has not moved past investigating how X handles unlawful content or Community Notes...
The 🇪🇺 Commission issued preliminary findings of liability on these three issues last year. None have anything to do with content or could, in any universe, be considered "censorship"🧵
Yesterday, @TechFreedom filed comments in response to the FTC’s request for input on whether social media content moderation might be unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive.
Efforts to regulate platforms’ content moderation decisions—whether through formal rulemaking or informal investigation—risk violating the First Amendment. The FTC cannot pressure private entities to alter or suppress speech, directly or indirectly.
The Supreme Court has made clear in NRA v. Vullo and Moody v. NetChoice that the government cannot pressure private platforms—through threats or investigations—to alter or suppress speech. Even informal coercion, as noted by dissenting justices in Murthy v. Missouri, may violate the First Amendment, especially when targeting platforms especially vulnerable to government pressure. Simply put: An investigation of a platform, the aim of which is to change the platform’s content moderation decisions, violates the First Amendment no less than a direct mandate.
The First Amendment protects editorial discretion. A platform’s decision about what speech to host or remove can violate no law.
The FTC’s authority is indeed broad. But no matter the legal theory, the First Amendment limits apply just the same. If the government’s real aim is to influence platforms’ speech choices, it cannot hide behind consumer protection or competition law to do so.
Conservative legal thought has long defended editorial discretion as essential to free speech. Republican Commissioners have repeatedly acknowledged the FTC lacks authority to police how media companies curate political expression. We now fear the Commission may seek to evade those limits by reframing editorial discretion as a regulatory harm.
Perhaps the FTC could police some dimensions of the process of content moderation without intruding on platforms’ editorial judgments, but those issues would be narrow and identifying them would require an in-depth dialogue with First Amendment scholars. Before the FTC takes any action, including opening investigations, it should hold a public workshop and then issue a policy statement clarifying its legal authority.

