Open Thread

Read the original at Reason ↗
Cite

Volokh, E. (2026, October 16). Open Thread. Reason. https://reason.com/volokh/2026/10/16/open-thread-359/

Dated from the outlet's own feed. Check the original for its byline.

Reason · collected 2026-10-16 · by Eugene Volokh

Quick Summary

Not summarized yet. This article was analyzed before summaries existed, or the model was unreachable at the time. python maintenance.py backfill-article-summaries fills these in.

AI analysis runs on qwen2.5:14b, locally

Story summary

Article 1 does not provide specific news details and is an open thread without concrete information to summarize. Therefore, there are no new facts or developments to report based on the given excerpt.

Written for “Open Thread” on 2026-10-16, grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.

Story

📰 Open Thread
Other · 1 article(s) covering the same event.

Compared with similar articles

This article reads unscored and hedges an unknown share of its claims. Each row says how that neighbour differs.
Open Thread different event · 98%
Reason · 1.00 cosine similarity
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 no claims extracted 📰 publisher trust 67
“The articles are titled 'Open Thread' but have different dates, indicating they are separate instances of an open thread discussion.”
Open Thread 455 different event · 98%
Astral Codex Ten
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 0% hedged 0 of 8
“The articles are open threads from different dates.”
Open Thread different event · 95%
Reason · 1.00 cosine similarity
⚖️ leaning not scored 🔴 no claims extracted 📰 publisher trust 67
“The articles are titled 'Open Thread' but have different dates, indicating they describe separate instances.”
How this article was measured signals, leaning charts, publisher record, byline, topics and claims

Signals How these are calculated →

Claims extracted
0
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
no claims
nothing to measure
Leaning
not political
takes no side on a contested political question
Publisher signals
67/100
Reason's corrections and hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Other
Same framing elsewhere
none derived
Analyzed 2026-10-16 · how these are computed

How this is being covered How these are calculated →

Article leaning vs. publisher reliability
Source leaning vs. consistency

Publisher

Reason · 756 article(s) · 4 correction(s) detected
Running correction rate · 4 correction(s)

Who wrote this

Eugene Volokh
144 article(s) here · 0 carrying a prediction
🔮 Even in First Amendment cases, where the facial-challenge bar is lower than it otherwise might be, the plaintiff [in a facial challenge] must show that "a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
🔮 Officers who violate the law may be criminally prosecuted by the State.
🔮 The standard for the granting of Pseudonym status can be found in Practice Book § 11–20A(h)(1) which provides in pertinent part: "Pseudonyms may be used in place of the name of a party or parties only with the prior approval of the judicial authority and only if the judicial authority concludes that such order is necessary to preserve an interest which is determined to override the public's interest in knowing the name of the party or parties.
🔮 It would hold up only if websites have an inherent expressive value that differs from the expressive value inherent in all books.
🔮 While any one of FirstBank's services to Epstein may be claimed to be "routine" (though in many instances even that is suspicious), together, the complaint alleges that FirstBank was deeply enmeshed in Epstein's misconduct for its own financial benefit….
🔮 We hold that some predicate crimes (like Bost's conviction for terroristic threats) demonstrate a prima facie risk of physical violence from misusing guns and that those convicted of such crimes may presumptively be disarmed based on those convictions alone….
🔮 However, when it came to Pride events, the newsroom was deviating from its typical editorial review process, and many reporters were beginning to go cover stories about Pride festivals as soon as they heard that the event was taking place—without discussing with the rest of the newsroom whether the story ought to be covered, whether it was duplicative of another story that had recently aired, or whether some unique aspect of the story could be explored in a way that highlighted the story's overall newsworthiness.
🔮 The Court will grant that motion as well, finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed not only on their due process claim, but also on their two First Amendment claims.
🔮 But if you submit exclusively to us before that, we will give you an answer within 14 days; and then if you'd like to have it published quickly, we can publish it in within a few months, if it's sufficiently clean and cite-checked by your research assistant.
🔮 Two NAMI supporters, whom we will call "June" and "Lynn," names we have randomly chosen in the interest of their privacy, were employees of a large health-insurance company and arrived early to set up a picnic area and booth to greet their participating coworkers and provide information about their employer.
Also by Eugene Volokh
Nothing else under this byline is closely related to this article, so these are simply their most recent.
All 144 articles by Eugene Volokh →

Topics

No topics tagged.

Subjects

No subjects extracted.

Narrative

No narrative derived. That requires at least one asserted claim.

Claims (0 extracted, 0 hedged)

No claims extracted from this article.
💬Give feedback
🕘History 🎫Support