First Amendment News 286: Resources on the First Amendment, the former president, the Senate impeachment trial and what lies ahead

First Amendment News 286: Resources on the First Amendment, the former president, the Senate impeachment trial and what lies ahead

2021-02-17 20:21:02
{widget1}

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

Representative Jamie Raskin

Main documents

The lawyers

House attorneys

Lawyers for the former president

Symposium on "National Security, Whistleblowers and the First Amendment"

First Amendment Law Review symposium ad

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.

Panelists:
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

Moderator:
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law

11:30 am, Panel II

Panelists:
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

Moderator:
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law

1:00 pm, Panel III

P.anlists:
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

Moderator:
Jason Mazzone, University of Illinois College of Law

For more information:
Yongli Yang
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.

Related

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.

Clear and present danger podcast art

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.

More in the news

2020-2021 SCOTUS Term: Free Speech and Related Matters

Business decides

  • McKesson to Doe (per curium, 7-1 with Thomas, J., dissent) (verdict cleared and returned to 5th Cir.)

Cases quarrel

Cert. granted

Pending petitions

Cert. denied

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.


{widget2}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *