Given the historical importance of the recent Senate impeachment process, I found it helpful to have an overview of the relevant documents, news stories, videos, and opinion pieces on the First Amendment arguments presented by the House managers and counsel for the former president were brought up along with what it all might predict for the future.
“He chases a crowd, turns them on, sets them on fire and then, when they are about to do the most deadly damage, turns away and falls into duty. That's why it's essential. is – essential! – that he be convicted and personally disqualified from fleeing. "
Laurence Tribe, Erin Burnett OutFront, CNN (12th of February
(D) The argument of the impeachment managers of the House that the First Amendment does not apply to presidents or others who "attack our democracy" was precisely the argument made by Joseph McCarthy and his followers in the 1950s.
Alan Dershowitz, The hill (February 4th
Holding the president accountable for his words on January 6, as part of that pattern, does not violate the First Amendment. The House's impeachment resolution reflects this. "
Anthony Romero, Executive Director, ACLU (January 11th
- Annie Karni, "N.A.A.C.P. Charges Trump and Giuliani over January 6 election campaign and riot, ”The New York Times (Feb. 16) (legal complaint here
- Russell Contreras, "The NAACP is suing Trump for inciting uproar in the Capitol, ”Axios (February 16)
- Paul F. deLespinasse, "Why the First Amendment does not apply to allegations,Newsmax (February 16)
- Mitch McConnell, "Acquittal justified the constitution, not Trump, ”The Wall Street Journal (February 15)
- Brooke Seipel, "McConnell defends acquittal in WSJ op-ed, but blows out Trump's wild untruths"," The Hill (February 15)
- Steven Dennis, "Republican Senators and Why They Voted the Way They Did, ”Twitter (February 15)
- The other time, Trump was accused of sedition: interview with Jonathan Adler, ”Smerconish, CNN (Feb. 14) (video)
- Raskin: "We have no regrets at all" for the loss of an impeachment trial, ”Meet The Press, NBC News (Feb. 14) (video)
- Statement by former President Donald Trump, ”Twitter (February 13)
- The speech of Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer after Trump's acquittal, ”CNN (February 13)
- Pelosi blasts McConnell, others who voted for acquittal as 'cowardly group of Republicans', ”ABC News (February 13)
- Managers emphasize McConnell's agreement that they have proven their case, ”ABC News (February 13)
- McConnell & # 39; s full comments after Senate vote to acquit Trump, ”NBC News (February 13) (video)
- Weiyi Cai, Annie Daniel, Jon Huang, Jasmine C. Lee and Alicia Parlapiano, "Trump's second charge: how the senate voted, ”The New York Times (February 13)
- Maanvi Singh, Adam Gabbatt and Martin Belam, "Trump impeachment: defense stops, claiming freedom of speech is at stake – as it happened, ”The Guardian (February 12)
- Mark Sherman, "Trump & # 39; s defense of free speech against allegations is open to dispute, ”Associated Press (February 12)
- Jacqueline Thompson, ""How dare you? ": Trump Impeachment Attorney Breaks Scholars Resistance to Defense Arguments.", ”Law.com (February 12)
- Trump's defense rests after a short presentation, allowing the Senate to begin the questioning phase, ”The New York Times (Feb. 12) (cf. here also)
- Louis Jacobson, "How solid is Donald Trump & # 39; s defense against First Amendment impeachment?, ”Politifact (February 12)
- Jess Bravin, "Trump's impeachment trial grapples with the definition of inducement, ”The Wall Street Journal (February 12)
- Ian Millhiser, "Trump's false claim that impeachment violates the First Amendment explains, ”Vox (February 12)
- Trump's defense team is arguing for First Amendment protection, ”The New York Times (February 12) (video)
- Manu Raju and Alex Rogers, "Three GOP senators meet with Trump's lawyers on the eve of the presentation of the defense against allegations, ”CNN (February 11)
- Morgan Phillips, "Dem impeachment managers focus on Trump lawyers' First Amendment argument, calling it a "distraction.""," Fox News (February 11)
- Josh Blackman, "A response to the response of the managers of the House of Representatives, ”The Volokh Conspiracy (February 11)
- Trump is not protected by the First Amendment from instigating insurgency, Rep. Raskin, ”PBS (February 11) (video)
- Dom Calicchio, "Jim Jordan: Dems ignores Trump urging DC crowd to protest "peacefully and patriotic", ”Fox News (February 11)
- Brakkton Booker, "House Impeachment Managers say Trump's "exhortation" is not a protected speech, ”NPR (February 10)
- Noah Feldman, "Impeachment does not violate Trump's First Amendment rights, ”Arizona Daily Sun (February 9)
- Jacob Sullum, "Trump & # 39; s Questionable First Amendment Defense Against Impeachment,Reason (February 9)
- Jonathan Turley, "Trump Impeachment Trial – No, impeachment is not isolated from free speech arguments, ”Fox News (February 9)
- Jonathan Turley"First Amendment Does Not Apply": A Response to Letter from Scientists Rejecting Trump's Arguments Under First Amendment, ”JonathanTurley.org (February 8)
- Matt Naham, "Federalist Society Co-Founder: Trump's Defense of Impeachment Is Like Claiming A President Cannot Be Convicted For Wearing a Swastika, ”Law & Crime (February 8)
- Ilya Somin, "Trump's rights to the First Amendment don't matter to his impeachment lawsuit, ”The Washington Post (February 8)
- Josh Blackman, "What do "many" of the more than 140 law professors think about the First Amendment and the impeachment?, ”The Volokh Conspiracy (February 6)
- Open letter: "Constitutional law scholars on the defense of President Trump's First Amendment, ”(Feb. 5) (NYT story here
- Elliot Mincberg, "Free Speech Arguments Against Trump's Accusation Dishonor The First Amendment, ”People for the American Way (February 5)
- Alan Dershowitz, "The impeachment of the house endangers the freedom of expression,The Hill (February 4)
- Catherine J. Ross, "What the First Amendment really says about whether Trump turned on the Capitol Riot, ”Slate (January 19)
- Keith E. Whittington, "Is there a defense against free speech on an accusation?, ”LawFare (January 19)
- Suzanne Nossel, "Don't let Trump's Second Trial change the First Amendment, ”The New York Times (January 14)
- Joseph Kennedy, "There is a big hole in Trump's First Amendment defense, ”Slate (January 14)
- Einer Elhauge, "The First Amendment does not protect Trump's exhortation, ”The Washington Post (January 14)
- James D. Zirin, "Sedition and the First Amendment, ”Moyers on Democracy (January 12)
- Anthony D. Romero, "We can uphold freedom of speech and hold President Trump accountable, ”ACLU (January 11)
Lawyers for the former president
Symposium on "National Security, Whistleblowers and the First Amendment"
Panel 1: "Classification of and access to national security information"
- Margaret Kwoka, Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law
- David Pozen, Vice Dean for Intellectual Life and Charles KellerBeekman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School
- Steven Vladeck, Charles Alan Wright Chair in Federal Courts at the University of Texas School of Law
Panel 2: "The press, whistleblowers and government information leaks"
- Heidi Kitrosser, Visiting Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
- David McCraw, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel at The New York Times Company
- Mary-Rose Papandrea, Judge John J. Parker Distinguished Professor of Law & Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of North Carolina School of Law
Upcoming Legal Review symposium on government speech
10:00 am, welcome notes
Vikram D. Amar, University of Illinois College of Law
10:05 am, Opening Keynote
Helen Norton, University of Colorado Law School
10:15 a.m., Panel I.
Claudia E. Haupt and Wendy E. Parmet, Northeastern University School of Law
Kate Shaw, Cardozo School of Law
Danielle K. Citron, University of Virginia School of Law
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
11:30 am, Panel II
William Araiza, Brooklyn Law School
Mary-Rose Papandrea, UNC School of Law
Clifford Rosky, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Alexander Tsesis, Loyola University Chicago School of Law
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
1:00 pm, Panel III
Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law
Michael S. Kang, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and Jacob Eisler, University of Southampton Law School
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Stetson University College of Law
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law
For more information:
JD Candidate, Class of 2021
Internet and symposium editor management, University of Illinois Law Review, 2020-2021
University of Illinois
New scientific article on first amendment and incorporation
The 20th-century emergence of the doctrine of incorporation is considered a critical development in constitutional law, but while issues related to the justification of the doctrine have been studied and debated for over fifty years, the causes and mechanisms of its advent have been relatively received little academic attention. . This essay, which is part of a symposium on Judge Jeffrey Sutton's recent book on state constitutional law, examines the doctrinal origins of incorporation, in an effort to help discover why the incorporation doctrine emerged when it happened and how it happened. It concludes that, for these purposes, incorporation can best be understood as three basic components, of which First Amendment incorporation predominated. It shows how the inclusion of the First Amendment drew in significant ways from existing doctrine, including important parts of "Lochnerian" case law, and was structured in a way that in turn facilitated the subsequent incorporation of criminal proceedings. Finally, it notes that the critical opening moments in incorporation decisions did not take into account, let alone adjudication, the kinds of issues that are central to today's discussions of judicial federalism.
New scientific article about Garcetti
So to Speak Podcast: "The Fight for Free Speech"
In this episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we are joined by media attorney Ian Rosenberg to discuss his new book: "The Struggle for Free Speech: Ten Cases That Define Our First Amendment freedoms
Rosenberg is an Assistant Chief Counsel at ABC, Inc., where he has advised ABC News clients on libel, news gathering, intellectual property and FCC regulatory matters since 2003.
Clear and Present Danger podcast on freedom of speech and racial justice
In May 2020, protests erupted across the US after a video appeared of a white police officer murdering a black man named George Floyd. Millions took to the streets in support of racial justice under the rallying cry of "Black Lives Matter." Most of the protests were peaceful, but violence was widespread in several cities. Freedom of expression was also affected. A disturbing number of incidents of police brutality and excessive violence against peaceful protesters and journalists have been documented. President Trump accused a Black Lives Matter leader of "treason, incitement, uprising" and labeled protesters as "terrorists."
But the demands for structural change also led to calls for de-platforming of people whose views were hostile to or even insufficiently supportive of racial justice. A Democratic data analyst named David Shor was laid off after tweeting a study that found nonviolent black-led protests to be more effective than violent protests in terms of gaining voter support. In another case, New York Times employees protested that the newspaper "endangered Black @ NYTimes employees" through a provocative opinion piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton, who advocated using the military to quell riots. The revolt in the editorial led to opinion leader James Bennet resigning.
Academia was also affected. A letter Signed by hundreds of Princeton faculty members, employees and students demanding that a faculty committee be established to "oversee the investigation and discipline of racist behavior, incidents, investigation and publication" and to "write guidelines on what counts as racist . "
Social media companies came under intense pressure to take a more robust stance on & # 39; hate speech & # 39 ;.
The anchoring of the so-called "cancel culture" has allowed about 150, mostly liberal, writers and intellectuals to have an open mind.Letter on Justice and Open DebateThe letter argued against what the signatories saw as "intolerance of opposing views, a fashion for public shame and exclusion, and the tendency to resolve complex policy issues in blinding moral certainty." The letter was harshly criticized by many journalists, writers and intellectuals for being & # 39; tone deaf & # 39 ;, & # 39; privileged & # 39 ;, & # 39; elitist & # 39; and detracted from or even hurt the fight for racial justice.
The wider debate often turned nasty – especially on social media – with loud voices on both sides engaging in alarming, bad faith arguments attributing the worst of intentions to their opponents. Many of those concerned about freedom of speech, warned of insidious totalitarianism imposed by "fighters for social justice," are running amok, intent on imposing a stifling orthodoxy of "wokeism". Some confused strong criticism of someone's ideas with attempts to suppress that person's speech. On the other hand, some racial justice activists flatly denied the existence of & # 39; cancel & # 39; culture. and did not differentiate between fierce criticism of someone's ideas and the call to punish that person by an employer, publisher or university. Some even accused defenders of free speech of being complicit or de facto defenders of white supremacy, comparing words deemed racially insensitive to violence.
These debates are based on a more fundamental question. Is a robust and principled approach to freedom of speech a basis for – or a threat to – racial justice?
To clarify this question, this episode will focus on the role the dynamics between censorship and free speech have played in perpetuating and challenging racist and oppressive societies. The episode takes US slavery and segregation, British colonialism and South African apartheid as case studies.
- Asawin Suebsaeng, Lachlan Cartwright and Adam Rawnsley, "Dominion Says It Will Indict MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell Over Election Fraud Claims, ”Daily Beast (February 16)
- Michael Powell, "Obscure Musicology Journal sparks battles over race and free speech, ”New York Times (February 14)
- Arizona lawmakers are moving forward with the anti-protest law, ”First Amendment Watch (February 16)
- Tyler Olson, "First Change Group Sues UCF for Bias Response Team, Voice Code, ”Fox News (February 16)
- Adam Steinbaugh, "University of Colorado Responds to Questions About Eastman & # 39; s Offside, Raises New Questions", FIRE (Feb. 15)
- David Hudson, "University investigates social posts from graduate students; she complains, ”The Free Speech Center (February 15)
- Elliott McLaughlin, "Larry Flynt waged many First Amendment wars – and not just in defense of porn, ”CNN (February 13)
- Alison Durkee, "Powell In Dominion Defamation Case, Forbes (February 12)
- Eugene Volokh, "Does the government have the right to control content moderation decisions?, ”The Volokh Conspiracy (February 12)
- Soraya Ferdman, "Fox asks judge to dismiss Smartmatic lawsuit, claiming coverage was protected by the First AmendmentFirst Amendment Watch (February 12)
- Justice drops case against former assistant Melania Trump, ”First Amendment Watch (February 9)
- Kashmir Hill, "Clearview AI's facial recognition app has been called illegal in Canada, ”New York Times (February 3)
2020-2021 SCOTUS Term: Free Speech and Related Matters
- McKesson to Doe (per curium, 7-1 with Thomas, J., dissent) (verdict cleared and returned to 5th Cir.)
First amendment related
Last scheduled FAN
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Professor Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public on First Amendment issues. The views expressed are those of the author (s) of the article and may not reflect the views of FIRE or Professor Collins.