Beyond the First Podcast

The First Amendment Warning America Is Ignoring

At first glance, this may look like a conversation about religion and politics. I think it’s actually a much bigger conversation about democracy itself and what happens when political power starts sounding sacred. I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of religion in public life, especially in a free society that cherishes freedom of expression. Not because I’m uncomfortable with religion in public life. I’m not. In fact, I think the First Amendment strongly protects religious expression, and I think the Supreme Court has often been right to push back when governments become openly hostile to faith. But I do think there’s a dangerous line democracies can cross when political leaders begin sounding spiritually untouchable; when criticizing politicians starts feeling almost immoral, disloyal or dare I say, blasphemous. That’s very different from religious freedom. And historically, free societies get into trouble when political power starts wrapping itself too tightly in sacred language and imagery. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. But it also protects the freedom to question power, disagree openly, and live as equal citizens even when we believe radically different things. That tension—between faith, freedom, and political power—may be one of the most important conversations America needs to have right now. Thanks for reading BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

TikTok, Porn-gating and the First Amendment: How 2025 Rewired Free Speech

Beyond the First Podcast, with First Amendment scholar Chris Terry. I’m going to say something that sounds dramatic, but I mean it plainly: 2025 is the year the internet’s First Amendment footing started to shift. It’s not because speech disappeared or because the government passed one giant “censorship law.” But because the Supreme Court signaled - quietly and almost politely - that the internet may no longer get the kind of “newspaper-level” protection many of us have assumed since the late 1990s. And once that protection starts wobbling, everything else gets easier to regulate. If you felt this year like free speech became less “a right” and more “terms and conditions apply,” you’re not crazy. What you’re noticing is a structural change. In my latest Beyond the First podcast episode, I talk with my friend, and University of Minnesota media law scholar, Chris Terry about why the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is being mis-sold to the public. Most people hear: “Oh, that’s the porn case.” Texas passed an age verification law so kids can’t access adult sites. End of story, right? Common sense. Protect children. Move on. But that’s not what makes this case consequential. So if you want to understand what actually changed in 2025, and what’s about to get tested in 2026, sit down and listen. This episode will give you the framework, not just the headlines. And I promise: you’ll walk away with better questions. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Beyond the First: The Hollywood Spin Machine – Who Controls the Truth?

Hollywood isn’t just about making movies—it’s about crafting narratives, both on-screen and off. In previous episodes of Beyond the First, we’ve explored the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni legal battle [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-court-documents-text-messages-b2686766.html] and the larger implications of defamation in the digital age. * In [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-suing-for-the-spotlight?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false]Episode 4 [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-suing-for-the-spotlight?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false], we analyzed the legal mechanics of defamation, breaking down the claims at the heart of Lively and Baldoni’s lawsuit and discussing how courts determine reputation harm in high-profile cases. * In [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-the-it-ends-with-us-lawsuit?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false]Episode 7 [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-the-it-ends-with-us-lawsuit?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false], we shifted focus to the power of social media, examining how viral narratives can sway public perception long before a judge or jury ever weighs in. Now, in Episode 10, we take the conversation further—diving into Hollywood’s PR machine [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-celebrity-pr-tactics_n_678ad1d6e4b0aa5a1d95cb24] and how public relations strategies often matter more than legal arguments in shaping the outcome of celebrity scandals. The Power of the PR Machine Joining me for this discussion are Lily M. Shall, Georgia Brucato, and special guest Jennifer Nassour [https://www.pocketbookproject.org/team-member/jennifer-a-nassour-esq], a political analyst [https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-07-09/republican-never-trump-voters-lack-good-options-former-mass-gop-chair-says], former journalist [https://www.newsmax.com/politics/economy-income-jeffries/2024/06/11/id/1168320/], and host of the Political Contessa [https://www.politicalcontessa.com/] podcast [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-contessa/id1588917810]. Together, we unpack how crisis PR, media manipulation, and social media algorithms shape what the public perceives as truth. We examine how viral narratives—often driven by snippets of interviews, selectively edited videos, and carefully placed leaks [https://www.threads.net/@sanikakelkar/post/DD_XT0sIwtg/social-media-has-transformed-pr-from-a-behind-the-scenes-function-into-a-highly-]—can make or break a celebrity’s reputation. As Georgia and Lily point out, social media platforms like TikTok have become the primary news source for many young audiences, making it easier than ever for PR teams to control narratives while bypassing traditional journalism. Jennifer brings a political perspective, drawing parallels between Hollywood’s PR machine and the spin tactics used in political campaigns [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html]. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html] She argues that as journalism budgets shrink and social media platforms amplify selective messaging, the line between [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]fact [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/] and [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]framing [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/] continues to blur [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]. From Depp v. Heard to Lively v. Baldoni – The Evolution of Media Trials The Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni legal dispute echoes themes we’ve seen before—most notably in the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/04/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-depp-heard] trial. As Lily reflects, social media was flooded with content favoring Depp, painting Heard as a manipulative villain. However, when she later watched the Netflix documentary Depp v. Heard, she realized how much evidence had been omitted from her TikTok feed. This raises an unsettling question: Are celebrity lawsuits still about justice, or are they media spectacles designed to sway public opinion? And if social media users are consuming only curated versions of events, is there any room for an objective truth [https://www.nytco.com/press/journalisms-essential-value/]? The Legal and Ethical Stakes Beyond the PR battle, this case also raises critical legal questions about defamation law in the digital era [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/683]. As Jennifer points out, former President Donald Trump has made loosening defamation protections a priority, and some Supreme Court justices have signaled interest in reconsidering [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-enduring-significance-of-new-york-times-v-sullivan#:~:text=Sarah%20Palin's%20Fight%20Against%20the,reconsider%20Sullivan%20and%20its%20progeny.]New York Times v. Sullivan [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-enduring-significance-of-new-york-times-v-sullivan#:~:text=Sarah%20Palin's%20Fight%20Against%20the,reconsider%20Sullivan%20and%20its%20progeny.], the landmark ruling that makes it harder for public figures to win defamation lawsuits. Meanwhile, Georgia questions whether celebrity defamation cases should be treated differently from those involving private individuals—since the damage to a public figure’s career can be immense, even if the legal standard for proving defamation remains high. Who Wins in the Court of Public Opinion? At the heart of the discussion is a bigger concern: In a world where perception is power, does the truth still matter? Hollywood and political elites have long known how to shape narratives, but social media algorithms have taken reputation management to an entirely new level [https://www.fastcompany.com/91204923/the-future-of-online-reputation-management-in-the-ai-era]. Lily argues that cancel culture has left celebrities with little room for error—where a single viral moment can redefine their public image overnight. Meanwhile, Jennifer warns that journalism itself is at risk, as fewer reporters engage in investigative work [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/12/news-reporters-journalism-jobs-census/], instead relying on social media trends to drive coverage. How This Episode Expands the Conversation Our previous discussions on defamation law and the social media impact on reputation set the foundation for understanding the legal stakes of the Lively v. Baldoni case. But this episode takes the conversation further by exploring: * The influence of Hollywood PR firms in shaping media coverage * How social media amplifies crisis PR narratives while limiting investigative journalism * The lasting impact of media trials on defamation law and celebrity culture As Jennifer notes, “whichever PR machine is bigger and better—that’s the side that wins.” And in today’s digital media landscape, where TikTok trends replace courtroom facts [https://www.tiktok.com/@rob_law_kc/video/7437411447124004128], public figures can often weaponize public perception as a legal strategy [https://blog.vinesight.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-managing-public-perception-and-protecting-your-brand-identity]. [https://blog.vinesight.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-managing-public-perception-and-protecting-your-brand-identity] Join the Conversation Hollywood’s PR machine isn’t slowing down—and neither is the public’s appetite for scandal. But if we want to be informed consumers of news and entertainment, we need to think critically about who is shaping the narratives we believe. Listen to the full episode of Beyond the First as we wrap up Season 1, where we explored the intersection of media, law, and influence. Be sure to subscribe for future discussions on the evolving media landscape. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Beyond the First: Art vs. Algorithm – Is AI Killing Human Imagination?

The rise of artificial intelligence has sparked a revolution in creative industries [https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/google/creator-economy/3959/], from film and music to digital art and design. AI can generate stunning images, compose music, and even write scripts in mere seconds. But as these technologies advance, so do the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding them. When human expression meets machine learning, fundamental questions emerge: Is AI expanding artistic possibilities [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/12/art-of-being-human-creativity-digital-age/], or is it merely mimicking and repackaging human creativity? In this episode of Beyond the First, I sit down with two students from my Media Law and Ethics class, to explore how AI is reshaping creative fields [https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/06/28/creative-economy-20-how-ai-is-reshaping-the-role-of-creative-agencies/]. We discuss whether AI-generated works deserve copyright protection, the threat automation poses to artists, and whether these tools are empowering or erasing human ingenuity. When AI Holds the Brush, Who Signs the Canvas?" 🎨 Originality Redefined [https://eudoxuspress.com/index.php/pub/article/view/1739?articlesBySimilarityPage=3] – AI-generated art, film, and music flood creative industries, but is it truly original or just an advanced form of imitation? ⚖️ Authorship on Trial [https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/05/dueling-briefs-filed-over-human-authorship-requirement-for-us-copyright-registration] – Copyright law assumes human intent and creative expression. But when machines remix existing works, who deserves credit— the programmer, the AI, or no one at all? 🚨 The Future of Creativity [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/artificial-intelligence-must-serve-human-creativity-not-replace-it/] – As AI reshapes artistic production, industries face a choice: embrace AI as a tool or fight to preserve human artistry in a world increasingly dominated by algorithms. 💬 Where do we draw the line between innovation and artistic theft? And if AI can create, what does that mean for the future of human expression? At the heart of this debate lies a core legal principle: Copyright law is built on the idea that an original work of authorship is entitled to protection [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf]. But in an era where AI generates paintings, films, and even music at the click of a button, what counts as "originality"—and who qualifies as the author? Traditional copyright frameworks assume human intent, skill, and creative expression—elements that AI challenges by remixing vast datasets of existing works. As AI-generated content floods creative industries, the legal and ethical boundaries of authorship are becoming increasingly blurred, raising urgent questions about ownership, attribution, and artistic value [https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/05/21/beyond-imagination-ai-art-and-the-ownership-dilemma/]. Meanwhile, artists and designers are grappling with an unsettling reality—companies are already replacing human creators with AI, raising concerns about fair compensation and the devaluation of original work. Tech developers argue that AI is just another tool, no different than a camera or a paintbrush. But where do we draw the line between inspiration and imitation? And can creative industries survive if AI-generated content saturates the market? Join us as we unpack the legal, ethical, and philosophical tensions at the heart of this debate. In a world where machines can now “create,” we ask: What is the future of art, and who gets to define it? Listen, Subscribe, and Join the Conversation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Beyond the First: Tracked, Targeted, and Manipulated – The Hidden Cost of Free Speech

Every time you go online, your data is being collected, analyzed, and sold [https://hai.stanford.edu/news/privacy-ai-era-how-do-we-protect-our-personal-information]—often without your full awareness. The concept of “surveillance capitalism,” popularized by Harvard Professor Shoshana Zuboff [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBFvX7txeA], describes this phenomenon where personal data is extracted and monetized on an unprecedented scale. From search history to social media interactions, your digital footprint fuels an industry built on surveillance and influence. But if data is power, then who really holds it? Companies track, collect, and monetize our data at an unprecedented scale, shaping everything from the ads we see to the content we consume. But as surveillance capitalism expands, fundamental questions arise: Does free speech truly exist when every click, search, and conversation is monitored? And can personal autonomy survive when data collection dictates our choices? In this episode of Beyond the First, I sit down with two students from my Media Law and Ethics class, to explore the tension between privacy rights, data collection, and free expression [https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Privacy-and-Freedom-of-Expression-4.pdf]. We discuss how surveillance capitalism shapes online speech and encourages self-censorship, whether tech companies wield too much control over personal autonomy, and the legal and ethical debates surrounding government and corporate data collection. Together, we unpack the implications of a world where digital footprints are constantly tracked and monetized. Privacy advocates argue that mass data collection creates a chilling effect, where individuals hesitate to speak freely, fearing surveillance or algorithmic consequences. At the same time, companies defend data collection as essential for personalized experiences and business innovation. So where do we draw the line between security, profit, and freedom? Your Data, Their Power: Living in the Age of Digital Surveillance 🔍 The Trail – Every online action leaves a trace—your clicks, searches, and conversations become part of an invisible data stream. But who’s watching [https://theconversation.com/surveillance-is-pervasive-yes-you-are-being-watched-even-if-no-one-is-looking-for-you-187139]? 💰 The Transaction – Your digital footprint isn’t just information—it’s a commodity. Tracked, analyzed, and sold [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/02/28/government-buying-your-data-00143742], your personal data fuels an industry designed to predict, influence, and profit from your every move. 🔗 The Control – As surveillance capitalism expand [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afOWUuimwOI]s, the lines between autonomy and manipulation blur. Are you truly free online, or are unseen forces shaping what you see, think, and do? 💬 If data is power, who really owns your digital life? And in a world where every move is tracked, is privacy just an illusion? Join us for a thought-provoking conversation on the future of digital rights, the cost of privacy, and what it means to have autonomy in an era of mass surveillance. Listen, Subscribe, and Join the Conversation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]