AI
agents
—
autonomous,
task-specific
systems
designed
to
perform
functions
with
little
or
no
human
intervention
—
are
gaining
traction
in
the
healthcare
world.
The
industry
is
under
massive
pressure
to
lower
costs
without
compromising
care
quality,
and
health
tech
experts
believe
agentic
AI
could
be
a
scalable
solution
that
can
help
with
this
arduous
goal.
However,
this
AI
category
comes
with
greater
risk
than
that
of
its
AI
predecessors,
according
to
one
cybersecurity
and
data
privacy
attorney.
Lily
Li,
founder
of
law
firm
Metaverse
Law,
noted
that
agentic
AI
systems,
by
definition,
are
designed
to
handle
actions
on
a
consumer
or
organization’s
behalf
—
and
this
takes
the
human
out
of
the
loop
for
potentially
important
decisions
or
tasks.
“If
there
are
hallucinations
or
errors
in
the
output,
or
bias
in
training
data,
this
error
will
have
a
real-world
impact,”
she
declared.
For
instance,
an
AI
agent
may
make
errors
such
as
refilling
a
prescription
incorrectly
or
mismanaging
emergency
department
triage,
potentially
leading
to
injury
or
even
death,
Li
said.
These
hypothetical
scenarios
shine
a
light
on
the
gray
area
that
arises
when
responsibility
shifts
away
from
licensed
providers.
“Even
in
situations
where
the
AI
agent
makes
the
‘right’
medical
decision,
but
a
patient
does
not
respond
well
to
treatment,
it
is
unclear
whether
existing
medical
malpractice
insurance
would
cover
claims
if
no
licensed
physician
was
involved,”
Li
remarked.
She
noted
that
healthcare
leaders
are
operating
in
a
complex
area
—
saying
she
believes
society
needs
to
address
the
potential
risks
of
agentic
AI,
but
only
to
the
extent
that
these
tools
contribute
to
excess
deaths
or
increased
harm
over
a
similarly-situated
human
physician.
Li
also
pointed
out
that
cybercriminals
could
take
advantage
of
agentic
AI
systems
to
launch
new
types
of
attacks.
To
help
avoid
these
dangers,
healthcare
organizations
should
incorporate
agentic
AI-specific
risks
into
their
risk
assessment
models
and
policies,
she
recommended.
“Healthcare
organizations
should
first
review
the
quality
of
underlying
data
to
remove
existing
errors
and
bias
in
coding,
billing
and
decision
making
that
will
feed
into
what
the
model
learns.
Then,
ensure
that
there
are
guardrails
on
the
types
of
actions
the
AI
can
take
—
such
as
rate
limitations
on
AI
requests,
geographic
restrictions
on
where
requests
come
from,
filters
for
malicious
behavior,”
Li
stated.
She
also
urged
AI
companies
to
adopt
standard
communication
protocols
among
their
AI
agents,
which
would
allow
for
encryption
and
identity
verification
to
avoid
the
malicious
use
of
these
tools.
In
Li’s
eyes,
the
future
of
agentic
AI
in
healthcare
might
depend
less
on
its
technical
capabilities
and
more
on
how
well
the
industry
is
able
to
build
trust
and
accountability
when
it
comes
to
the
use
of
these
models.
*
Elena
Kagan
points
out
that
the
Supreme
Court
majority
just
used
a
glorified
TRO
to
functionally
reverse
a
century
of
precedent
because,
like
Whose
Line
Is
It
Anyway,
the
rules
are
made
up
and
nothing
matters.
[Newsweek]
*
West
Point
law
professor
sues
administration
over
First
Amendment
violations.
[Army
Times]
*
The
administration
says
Tylenol
causes
autism…
reset
the
clock
to
see
who
shorted
Kenvue
hours
before
the
announcement,
followed
by
who
goes
long
hours
before
Trump
announces
that
the
company
bought
him
a
mega
yacht
and
now
ibuprofen
causes
cancer.
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
“Did
the
SEC
Just
Kill
the
Securities
Class
Action?”
Teapot
Dome
over
the
weekend…
Hoovervilles
by
next
year.
Right
on
pace.
[New
York
Law
Journal]
*
Oracle
taking
control
of
TikTok
data,
proving
that
it
really
can
get
worse
than
handing
your
data
to
the
Chinese
Communist
Party.
[Law360]
*
Trump
wants
charges
brought
against
Letitia
James
and
other
political
enemies
as
retribution
for
the
charges
he
and
his
business
faced
because
he
doesn’t
understand
that
his
organization
committed
crimes
and
they
didn’t.
[National
Law
Journal]
The
mysterious
illness,
which
farmers
say
causes
internal
rotting
and
primarily
attacks
the
lungs,
has
killed
dozens
of
cattle
in
recent
months.
Traditional
remedies
have
proven
ineffective,
and
villagers
say
the
lack
of
veterinary
support
and
dipping
facilities
has
worsened
the
crisis.
For
communities
like
Gankabezi,
cattle
are
not
just
animals,
they
are
a
store
of
wealth,
a
source
of
food,
draught
power,
and
income
for
school
fees
and
building
projects.
With
herds
decimated,
households
now
face
financial
ruin.
“We
used
to
earn
a
living
by
selling
cattle
to
take
kids
to
school
and
even
for
building.
I
sold
some
to
buy
food,”
said
Bekithemba
Thebe,
who
lost
21
cattle.
The
scale
of
the
loss
has
been
traumatic.
Gift
Ndlovu,
who
lost
his
entire
herd
save
for
a
few
calves,
described
the
emotional
toll:
“I
sometimes
lose
my
mind
when
I
think
about
the
property
that
I
lost.”
Some
families
lost
multiple
cattle
in
a
single
day.
Roger
Ncube
said
he
buried
15
animals
in
quick
succession.
The
situation
was dire,
with
some
villagers
losing
multiple
cattle in
a
single
day.
Roger
Ncube,
who
lost
15
cattle,
recounted
the
painful
experience.
“They
were
dying
in
numbers
a
day, we eventually
had
to
leave
some
to
rot
because
of
the
sheer
rate
of
death,”he
said.
Village
head
Sydney
Mthuthuki
Mkhwananzi
said
he
lost
19
cattle
and
recounted
how
his
father
died
from
stress
after
losing
five
animals
in
three
days.
Beyond
disease,
villagers
are
also
contending
with
poor
infrastructure
and
recurrent
droughts.
Their
only
borehole
has
been
vandalised
by
thieves,
and
there
is
no
reliable
access
to
vaccines
or
dipping
services.
“Now
we
are
being
told
that
there
is
no
vaccine,
cows
do
not
dip,”
said
Zephaniah
Nkomo,
who
lost
10
cattle.
Farmers’
organisations
confirm
the
situation
is
not
isolated.
Clarkson
Matshaya
from
the
Umzingwane
District
Farmers
Association
said
cattle
in
other
wards
had
also
succumbed
to
January
disease,
hunger,
and
veld
fires
caused
by
artisanal
miners.
Theft
of
livestock
is
also
on
the
rise.
Matshaya
urged
farmers
to
produce
fodder
and
called
on
authorities
to
provide
sustainable
solutions.
“Farmers
must
have
access
to
water
in
Umzingwane
and
Ncema
dams
for
fodder
production.
Rehabilitation
and
solarising
dip
tanks
would
also
help,”
he
said.
The
villagers
also
appealed
for
urgent
government
and
donor
support,
including
veterinary
services,
vaccines,
and
restocking
programmes
with
cattle
or
goats
to
restore
livelihoods
and
prevent
further
despair.
The
Matabeleland
South
Veterinary Services
Department
did
not
respond
to
questions
sent
to
them
at
the
time
of
publishing.
At
Katema
Clinic,
women
spoke
in
hushed
but
resolute
tones
about
how
patriarchal
traditions
and
male
dominance
are
preventing
them
from
using
Pre-exposure
prophylaxis
(PrEP),
a
proven
medicine
that
drastically
reduces
the
risk
of
contracting
HIV.
For
Cleopatra
Jongwe,
31,
from
Pomerai
Village,
PrEP
represents
hope
in
a
marriage
where
her
husband
refuses
HIV
testing
and
condom
use.
“I
know
that
if
I
use
PrEP,
I
will
not
be
infected
even
if
I
engage
in
unprotected
sex
with
that
partner,”
she
explained.
But
once
she
tried,
her
worst
fears
were
confirmed.
“The
moment
you
get
home
with
PrEP,
tensions
mount
with
our
traditional
husbands
who
accuse
us
of
promiscuity.
We
end
up
ditching
the
drugs
and
exposing
ourselves
to
HIV
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
want
to
protect
our
marriages.”
Her
story
is
echoed
by
many
in
Gokwe
South,
where
women
say
male
partners
often
equate
prevention
drugs
with
infidelity.
Community
leaders
admit
the
deeply
ingrained
gender
roles
give
men
control
over
sexual
and
reproductive
decisions,
leaving
women
powerless
to
act,
even
in
the
face
of
clear
risk.
Zimbabwe
has
been
hailed
for
its
progress
against
HIV.
More
than
1.3
million
people
live
with
the
virus,
but
the
country
has
reached
the
UNAIDS
95-95-95
fast-track
targets:
95%
of
people
living
with
HIV
know
their
status,
95%
of
those
diagnosed
are
on
treatment,
and
95%
of
those
on
treatment
have
suppressed
the
virus.
The
country
has
also
slashed
mother-to-child
transmission
rates
from
about
30%
in
2005
to
6.4%
in
2025.
But
the
figure
remains
slightly
above
the
global
elimination
target
of
5%,
and
experts
warn
that
rural
gender
dynamics
risk
slowing
the
fight.
Community
Health
Nurse
Nomatter
Kamutande
says
the
cost
of
men’s
resistance
is
often
borne
by
women
and
unborn
children.
“Please,
when
situations
like
these
arise,
let
us
use
condoms
until
the
baby
is
born,
so
they
come
out
uninfected
with
HIV,”
she
pleaded.
“We
want
zero
infections.
We
do
not
want
that
scenario
where
the
mother
transmits
HIV
to
the
unborn
child,
yet
we
have
all
prevention
measures
at
our
disposal.”
Health
rights
organisations
say
the
resistance
in
communities
like
Gokwe
is
not
about
science
or
access
alone
but
culture.
In
many
patriarchal
households,
men’s
authority
extends
to
what
women
can
do
with
their
bodies.
While
PrEP
has
been
approved
in
Zimbabwe
in
multiple
forms
—
oral
pills,
a
long-acting
injection,
and
a
vaginal
ring
—
distribution
remains
limited
by
funding,
awareness,
and
stigma.
In
rural
settings,
stigma
is
often
the
harshest
barrier.
“Cultural
norms
expect
women
to
be
faithful
while
allowing
men
multiple
partners,”
said
one
health
outreach
worker.
“This
means
women
are
at
risk
even
when
they
themselves
are
abstinent.
Yet
if
a
woman
tries
to
take
PrEP,
she
is
branded
unfaithful.
It
is
a
contradiction
that
keeps
infections
alive.”
Between
January
and
June
2025,
Zimbabwe
recorded
nearly
6,000
AIDS-related
deaths,
slightly
higher
than
the
same
period
in
2024.
Health
experts
fear
such
numbers
could
rise
if
prevention
tools
remain
out
of
reach
for
those
most
at
risk.
In
places
like
Gokwe
South,
women
say
they
are
trapped:
protect
their
marriages
and
risk
infection,
or
protect
their
health
and
risk
domestic
violence
or
rejection.
That’s
A
Lot
Of
Money!:
Great
time
to
work
for
AZA!
The
Call
Is
Coming
From
The
Formerly
Inside
The
House:
Ty
Cobb
sees
a
lot
of
Putin
in
Trump.
Adios,
China:
K&L
Gates
shuts
down
their
Beijing
office.
The
Question
On
Everyone’s
Mind:
Did
Tom
Homan
keep
the
FBI
money?!
So
Much
For
The
Suspension:
Jimmy
Kimmel
is
back!
According
to
analysis
by
Empirical
SCOTUS’s
Adam
Feldman,
the
greatest
number
of
lawsuits
challenging
Executive
Orders
issued
by
Donald
Trump
in
his
second
term
were
about
which
issue?
If
your
legal
team
is
exploring
how
to
use
generative
AI
in
practice,
and
let’s
be
honest,
most
are
at
least
testing
the
waters,
the
conversation
often
jumps
straight
to
tools
and
outputs.
Which
chatbot
should
we
use?
Can
we
trust
it
to
draft
something
real?
How
do
we
control
hallucinations?
But
before
you
even
get
there,
there’s
a
more
basic
question
that
many
legal
departments
overlook.
What
are
we
feeding
the
AI
in
the
first
place?
In
a
recent
episode
of
“Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,”
Linsey
Krolik,
a
law
professor
at
Santa
Clara
University
and
longtime
in-house
counsel
at
companies
like
PayPal
and
Arm,
made
a
compelling
case
for
what
she
calls
AI
literacy.
But
the
bigger
insight
was
between
the
lines:
you
can’t
use
AI
effectively
in
a
legal
setting
without
understanding
the
inputs,
and
that
means
contracts.
Watch
the
episode
here:
The
AI
Moment
Isn’t
Coming.
It’s
Already
Here.
“We
are
using
generative
AI
today,
whether
we
want
to
admit
it
or
not,”
Linsey
said
during
the
interview.
“It’s
happening.
So
get
on
board
and
we
can
learn
together.”
That
sense
of
collective
learning,
and
the
gap
between
curiosity
and
confidence,
is
something
many
in-house
teams
are
experiencing
firsthand.
There
is
pressure
to
move
quickly,
reduce
turnaround
time,
and
do
more
with
less.
AI
promises
all
of
that.
But
as
Linsey
pointed
out,
we
need
to
start
with
the
basics.
She’s
training
law
students
to
build
real-world
legal
documents
like
terms
of
service
and
privacy
policies
for
early-stage
startups.
These
students
are
already
experimenting
with
AI.
They’re
learning
where
it
helps,
where
it
fails,
and
how
to
critically
assess
its
output.
They
are
developing
muscle
memory
not
just
in
drafting,
but
in
understanding
why
contracts
are
structured
the
way
they
are.
That
foundational
skill,
contract
literacy,
is
what
too
many
practicing
teams
are
missing.
AI
Is
A
Mirror.
If
Your
Contract
Data
Is
A
Mess,
It
Will
Show.
When
lawyers
think
about
AI
tools,
it’s
easy
to
focus
on
the
output.
What
can
it
draft?
What
questions
can
it
answer?
But
what
matters
just
as
much
is
the
underlying
data.
If
your
team
can’t
easily
answer
questions
like
“What
are
our
standard
payment
terms
across
all
NDAs?”
or
“Which
vendor
contracts
auto-renew
in
the
next
90
days?”
then
any
AI
solution
you
implement
will
be
trying
to
find
patterns
in
chaos.
Linsey
emphasized
that
in-house
teams
are
increasingly
being
asked,
“Did
you
use
AI
for
this?”
And
when
the
answer
is
no,
the
follow-up
is
often,
“Why
not?”
That
pressure
to
explore
and
adopt
is
growing.
But
AI
isn’t
magic.
It
won’t
clean
up
your
contract
portfolio
for
you.
It
will
only
surface
what’s
already
there,
or
worse,
what’s
missing.
Contract
Literacy
Isn’t
Just
Knowing
Legal
Terms.
It’s
Knowing
The
Business.
One
of
the
sharpest
observations
Linsey
made
during
the
conversation
was
about
how
contract
education
has
evolved.
She’s
moved
beyond
traditional
legal
writing
assignments
to
include
things
like
AI-assisted
drafting
and
short
business-style
presentations.
Why?
Because
she
understands
that
lawyers
today
don’t
just
write
contracts.
They
explain
them.
They
negotiate
them.
They
implement
them.
And
increasingly,
they
design
workflows
and
data
systems
around
them.
AI
can
support
that
work,
but
only
when
the
lawyer
understands
what
the
business
needs
from
the
contract.
If
you
can’t
articulate
the
difference
between
what
a
procurement
manager
wants
to
know
and
what
your
finance
lead
needs
to
see,
no
AI
tool
will
bridge
that
gap
for
you.
The
Real
Risk
Isn’t
AI.
It’s
Staying
Unprepared.
Linsey
acknowledged
the
ethical
concerns
around
AI,
confidentiality,
accuracy,
and
unauthorized
reliance,
but
she
also
made
it
clear
that
the
bigger
risk
is
paralysis.
“There’s
a
lot
of
uncertainty
now,”
she
said.
“But
I
think
we
need
to
start
being
more
curious
and
less
scared.”
She
teaches
her
students
to
disclose
when
they
use
AI,
to
reflect
on
why
they
used
it,
and
to
evaluate
the
quality
of
the
output.
In
doing
so,
they
learn
how
to
build
trust
in
the
tools
and
in
their
own
judgment.
That
same
framework
applies
to
in-house
legal
teams.
Instead
of
asking
whether
AI
is
perfect,
start
asking
whether
your
team
is
ready.
Can
you
explain
what
your
standard
indemnity
clause
looks
like?
Can
you
audit
vendor
agreements
for
renewal
triggers?
Do
you
have
a
structured
way
to
compare
terms
across
contracts?
These
are
contract
literacy
questions.
And
until
you
can
answer
them
confidently,
AI
will
remain
a
shiny
solution
looking
for
a
problem.
Want
To
Get
AI-Ready?
Start
With
Your
Contracts.
Linsey
Krolik
is
training
the
next
generation
of
lawyers
to
think
critically,
use
emerging
tools
responsibly,
and
work
directly
with
the
business.
If
today’s
law
students
are
learning
to
draft,
structure,
and
analyze
contracts
with
AI
as
a
companion,
then
the
rest
of
the
legal
world
needs
to
catch
up
fast.
AI
readiness
starts
with
knowing
what
you
have,
what
it
means,
and
how
to
use
it.
That
begins
not
with
software,
but
with
skill.
Not
with
automation,
but
with
understanding.
Contract
literacy
isn’t
the
end
goal.
It’s
the
starting
line.
Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.
Last
week,
mega
Biglaw
firm
Baker
McKenzie
filed
a
lawsuit
against
a
former
associate
in
the
Superior
Court
of
the
District
of
Columbia.
The
firm’s
defamation
lawsuit
alleges
the
former
tax
associate,
Brooke
Radford,
made
repeated
allegations
on
social
media
and
Reddit
—
some
80+
of
them
—
falsely
accusing
a
partner
of
sexually
assaulting
her
and
accusing
the
firm
of
covering
it
up.
According
to
the
complaint,
available
in
full
below,
Radford
said
she
was
assaulted
by
Maurice
Bellan
(also
a
plaintiff
in
the
lawsuit)
and
was
terminated
by
the
firm
when
she
turned
down
the
partner’s
advances.
However,
the
firm
maintains
they
had
a
very
different
reason
for
her
termination.
Baker
terminated
Ms.
Radford’s
employment
during
June
2025
because
she:
(1)
made
multiple
unauthorized
personal
purchases
on
her
Firm-issued
credit
card,
including
clothing
at
high-end
clothing
stores,
first-class
airplane
tickets,
and
many
personal
food
delivery
and
Lyft
transportation
charges;
(2)
violated
other
Firm
policies;
and
(3)
refused
to
cooperate
with
a
Firm
investigation
into
the
unauthorized
charges
and
other
violations.
The
complaint
also
documents
“accusatory,
threatening,
and
otherwise
odd
comments”
Radford
made
in
a
group
text
chat
of
Baker
tax
associates.
During
June
and
July
2025,
both
after
Baker
had
informed
Ms.
Radford
that
it
was
terminating
her
employment
and
after
her
employment
officially
ended,
Ms.
Radford
texted
messages
to
a
Baker
associates’
group
text
chat
that
included,
among
other
messages:
Accusing
her
former
colleagues
of
“oppression”;
Accusing
a
former
colleague
of
“mov[ing]
[her]
things
during
a
meeting”;
Singling
out
the
same
former
colleague
and
asking
whether
she
“would
like
to
apologize
for
anything
you’ve
done
to
me”;
Saying
that
she
“wanted
to
air
some
things
out”;
Radford
also
wrote
to
the
group
chat
songs
and
albums
about
revenge,
specifically
“5
AM
in
Philly,”
and
the
album
“AI
Youngboy
2.”
The
complaint
also
details
“threatening”
text
messages
Radford
sent
to
Bellan
after
she
was
terminated
that
included
details
on
tragic
news
stories,
a
rap
song
about
violent
retribution,
and
one
that
said
“The
next
person
that
contacts
me
on
your
behalf
will
be
informed
that
you
offered
me
$50,000
to
have
your
grandchild
then
fired
me
because
I
chose
not
to.
I
suggest
you
call
it
quits
before
I
let
everyone
know
everything.”
Before
the
firm
filed
their
lawsuit,
Radford
said
she
planned
legal
action,
but
she’s
not
commented
on
the
lawsuit
Baker
McKenzie
filed.
The
firm’s
spokesperson
said
of
the
suit,
“Ms.
Radford’s
public
statements
are
false,
defamatory
and
malicious.”
The
firm
is
seeking
injunctive
relief
and
monetary
damages.
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].
It
is
like
having
an
overdraft
line
of
credit.
[Law
firms]
don’t
plan
on
drawing
on
it,
but
knowing
it
is
there
in
case
you
go
over
is
comforting.
It
is
looked
at
as
a
smart,
common
tool.
—
Jeffrey
Lowe,
market
president
of
Washington,
DC
office
of
legal
advisory
and
recruiting
firm
CenterPeak,
in
comments
given
to
the
American
Lawyer,
speaking
generally
on
law
firm
practices
when
it
comes
to
lines
of
credit.
Kirkland
&
Ellis,
the
No.
1
law
firm
in
the
country
when
it
comes
to
gross
revenue,
reportedly
has
a
revolving
line
of
credit
that’s
in
excess
of
$1
billion,
which
is
10+
times
the
size
of
the
average
Am
Law
100
firm’s
revolving
credit
line.
Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.
The
recent
Jimmy
Kimmel
suspension
was
more
than
just
a
crash
course
in
jawboning;
it
was
the
banana
in
the
coal
mine
that
showed
how
thin
the
line
is
between
late
night
comedy
and
government
censorship.
And
after
ABC
caved
to
a
direct
threat
from
the
FCC,
it
seemed
like
Jimmy
Fallon
and
Seth
Meyers
were
our
last
bastion
against
state-controlled
media.
What
weak
walls
those
would
be.
Thankfully,
Kimmel
isn’t
nearly
as
done
with
the
fight
for
free
speech
as
things
appeared
to
be.
Variety
has
coverage:
Disney
and
ABC
will
bring
the
comedian
back
to
its
schedule
starting
Tuesday
night.
“Last
Wednesday,
we
made
the
decision
to
suspend
production
on
the
show
to
avoid
further
inflaming
a
tense
situation
at
an
emotional
moment
for
our
country.
It
is
a
decision
we
made
because
we
felt
some
of
the
comments
were
ill-timed
and
thus
insensitive,”
the
company
said
in
a
statement.
“We
have
spent
the
last
days
having
thoughtful
conversations
with
Jimmy,
and
after
those
conversations,
we
reached
the
decision
to
return
the
show
on
Tuesday.”
Three
cheers
for
having
a
backbone!
Last
week,
Sinclair
tried
to
bully
Kimmel
into
apologizing
and
paying
tithe
to
Turning
Point
and
Kirk’s
estate
before
he
could
get
back
on
TV.
Jimmy
refused
the
attempted
strong-arming
and
good
on
him
for
it.
And
good
for
us
too
—
we
probably
would
have
had
the
same
Jimmy
Kimmel
has
more
of
a
backbone
than
any
of
the
firms
that
pledged
loyalty
to
Trump
when
the
law
was
on
their
side
thoughts,
but
now
they’re
doubly
as
strong.
Mind
you,
the
reversal
on
the
suspension
likely
had
more
to
do
with
business
than
it
had
to
do
with
a
commitment
to
free
speech
principles,
but
that
said,
be
wary
about
the
“Disney
lost
$4B
over
this”
information
being
bandied
about
—
the
numbers
aren’t
as
clear
as
that
would
suggest.
Either
way,
a
win
is
a
win!
You’d
better
have
one
hell
of
a
cold
open
tomorrow,
Kimmel.
The
pressure
is
on!
Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
is
learning
to
swim, is
interested
in
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at [email protected]
and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.
Kathryn
