Category: Constitutional Law

0

FAN 74.1 (First Amendment News) First Amendment Salon goes to L.A. — Chemerinsky & Volokh discuss Roberts Court & First Amendment . . . & more!

It was a remarkable late-afternoon program yesterday as the First Amendment Salon went on the road for the first time with an event held at the Los Angeles office of Davis Wright Tremaine. There was a live video feed to DWT’s offices in New York City and Washington, D.C. Those participating in the Salon (the sixth) were UC Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh with DWT lawyer Kelli Sager moderating the exchange between the two. The Salons are conducted in association with the law firm of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz and the Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School. (Chemerinsky and Volokh are on the Salon’s advisory board). Lee Levine introduced the program. The topic of discussion for the 90-minute exchange, replete with questions from the audience, was “The Roberts Court and the First Amendment.”

Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky & Kelli Sager

                        Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky & Kelli Sager

The Chemerinsky-Volokh exchange was nuanced and esoteric yet always insightful, informative, and engaging. Ms.Sager ably navigated the discussion through a variety of topics including:

  • First Amendment law in the context of the government acting as sovereign vs the government acting in a managerial capacity
  • the reach of the government speech doctrine after Walker
  •  the future of “strict scrutiny” analysis after Williams-Yulee
  • whether in light of Williams-Yulee (and the idea that judicial elections are different) independent expenditures might be regulated notwithstanding the holding in Buckley
  • the impact of Reed on the “secondary effects” doctrine
  • the likelihood that the trio of Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan will be able to persuade a majority of the Court to abandon strict scrutiny in content-discrimination cases
  • whether in the Friedrichs case the Court will overrule Abood (reference was made to Catherine Fisk’s SCOTUSblog post “The Friedrichs petition should be dismissed“)
  • what important First Amendment issues are not before the Court but which need to be
  • whether the Court is likely to grant cert. in a “right to publicity” case (see Law360 Aug. 14, 2015 news story here)
  • and how the Court has yet to give any serious consideration, post Reno and Ashcroft, as to how the Internet impacts First Amendment law.
Judge Alex Kozinski

Judge Alex Kozinski

And there was more, much more, including a variety of questions from the audience consisting of First Amendment lawyers and law professors, journalists, and free-speech activists.

BTW: Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski was in the audience and asked the two professors to comment on the following statement: “The big threat to free speech in the next twenty years is from foreign countries” trying to enforce “right to be forgotten” laws against the likes of Google and ordering them to remove certain items from all of their posts in all nations, including the United States. “The right to be forgotten,” he added, “is just the first of what may be many laws that are more speech restrictive than those of the U.S., e.g. defamation, privacy, and moral rights.” [See Mike Masnick, “Google Disappears Techdirt Article About Right To Be Forgotten Due To Right To Be Forgotten Request,” Infowars.com, Aug. 25, 2015)]

Shout out to the fine folks at Davis Wright Tremaine for hosting the Los Angeles Salon.

The L.A. Salon event was video-recored and I hope to post a link to it soon.

Go here for video of fifth Salon: “Is the First Amendment Being Misused as a Deregulatory Tool?”  The exchange, held at the Abrams Institute at Yale Law School, was between Professors Jack Balkin and Martin Redish with Floyd Abrams moderating.

0

The Many Bills of Rights

202px-Webster_2One theme of my next book is that in the nineteenth century many texts vied for the title of our national bill of rights.  Thus, when you see references to the Bill of Rights before the 1890s, you can’t be sure what you’re seeing.

Here’s an example that I’ve finally figured out.  In 1867, President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Second Reconstruction Act, which was part of Congress’s plan to impose military rule on the South until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.  In that veto, Johnson quoted Daniel Webster, who said: “[T]he military must be kept, according to the language of our bill of rights, in strict subordination to the civil authority. Wherever this lesson is not both learned and practiced there can be no political freedom.”

Now at first this is puzzling.  While you can construe parts of the Bill of Rights, like the Third Amendment, as being about civil supremacy over the military, there certainly is not any clear language on that.  Then I thought, “Well, maybe Webster and Johnson were referring to the Declaration of Independence.”  People back then did call that a bill of rights, and it does speak directly to the issue of civil/military relations in one passage condemning George III.

So then I looked for the original Webster quote.  It’s in an oration he gave in 1843 to dedicate the monument at Bunker Hill.  (He gave an even better speech there when they began building the monument in 1825.)  Turns out Webster was talking about the Massachusetts Bill of Rights (by “our” he meant “in our state”), which also talks about keeping the military subordinate to civil authority.

Indeed, during Reconstruction you see “our Bill of Rights” defined as

  1.  The Massachusetts Bill of Rights (by Johnson)
  2. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution (by the Supreme Court)
  3. The first eight amendments (by some members of Congress)
  4. The first ten amendments (by other members of Congress)
  5. The Declaration of Independence (by still others)

There were other candidates (maybe I’ll do another post on that later in the week).

FullSizeRender
0

FAN 74 (First Amendment News) Summer thoughts on dissent

Before the summer runs its course, I thought I’d do a post on one of my favorite topics — dissent. So no news this week, just some thoughts on dissent — and some lists of books, and songs, and what have you.

Take dissent out of the cultural and constitutional equation and what remains is faint-hearted freedom. Dissent gives free speech its steel. One of the First Amendment’s greatest virtues is the protection of those messages we fear and/or loathe — those sent our way by insufferable Anti-Federalists, abolitionists, suffragists, unionists, anarchists, Communists, atheists, civil-rights activists, anti-war pacifists, gay-rights antagonists, Tea Party supporters, religious zealots, the politically incorrect, and even nihilists.

* * * *

William F. Buckley, Jr.

William F. Buckley, Jr.

Dissent. It is a word we all know. We use the word with regularity in any variety of contexts. Judges dissent against a court majority. Political activists dissent against the establishment. Religious protesters dissent against orthodoxy. Students dissent against an administration. Newspaper editorialists dissent against politicians. And employees dissent against management. The list goes on.

In these ways and others, America values dissent, or so it seems. We often tolerate, encourage, and protect dissent. It is part of our Madisonian heritage. Some preach it, some practice it, others safeguard it, and still others endure it even when they oppose its message. Dissent is a salient feature of our modern society. It is a cultural and constitutional given.

Over the ages, dissent has been championed for assorted reasons. Dissent, it might be said, promotes self-realization and autonomy. It enables individual self-expression without fear of societal repression. The liberty of self is meaningless if one must always conform to majority will. Freedom for the outsider allows a unique brand of self-identity and self-expression.

Dissent, it might be said, advances religious freedom. When people of faith are permitted to question prevailing beliefs, they stand to redefine the relationship between themselves and their Maker. This spirit of moderation extinguishes the fires of heresy.

Dissent, it might also be said, contributes to the marketplace of ideas. It does this by promoting competition among divergent viewpoints. The hope is that, in the battle of opinions, some form of truth will prevail over falsehood, and the struggle will produce a more enlightened citizenry.

(credit: Adam Zyglis / The Buffalo News)

(credit: Adam Zyglis / The Buffalo News)

Dissent, it might further be said, enables self-governance by civic participation. Such participation is a two-way street: it is the prerogative to agree or disagree with governmental action. When the governed rule, they must have the right to differ from their governors.

Dissent likewise checks governmental abuses of power. When the whistleblower exposes governmental corruption or malfeasance, political power then comes under public scrutiny. By raising citizen awareness, dissent might bring about institutional reforms.

Dissent might moreover cultivate a democratic culture of tolerance, where all views are suffered no matter how objectionable they may be. Democracy is diversity, and diversity of views is often born out of dissent. One measure of a thriving democracy is the extent to which it fosters vibrant dissent.

Finally, it might also be said that a culture of dissent secures a safe haven for the outsider. When individuals no longer fear censure simply for being different, they can give public voice to their private views. Thereby, dissenters are afforded a chance to expand the behavioral boundaries of their society.

Whatever the objections to dissent, it is valued for all these reasons and others.  (source: Collins & Skover, On Dissent: Its Meaning in America)

Unknown rebel in front of tank in Tiananmen Square (credit: The Mirror, UK)

Unknown rebel in front of tank in Tiananmen Square (credit: The Mirror, UK)

Books of and on Dissent 

  1. Pierre Berton, editor, Voices from the Sixties: Twenty-Two Views of a Revolutionary Decade (1966)
  2. William F. Buckley, Jr., God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of “Academic Freedom” (1951)
  3. Stokely Carmichael & Charles Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America (1976)
  4. Stephen Carter, The Dissent of the Governed (1998)
  5. Nancy Chang, Silencing Political Dissent (2002)
  6. Collins & Skover, On Dissent: Its Meaning in America (2013)
  7. Dinesh D’Souza, Letters to a Young Conservative (2005)
  8. William O. Douglas, Points of Rebellion (1969)
  9. Christopher Fairman, Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting our First Amendment Liberties (2009)
  10. Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (1963)
  11.  Amin Ghaziani, The Dividends of Dissent: How Conflict and Culture Work in Lesbian and Gay Marches on Washington (2008)
  12. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (2009)
  13. Andrew Hsiao & Audrea Lim, editors, The Verso Book of Dissent: From Spartacus to the Shoe-Thrower of Baghdad (2010)
  14.  Eugene Dennis

                   Eugene Dennis

    Martin Luther King, Letter From a Birmingham Jail (1963) (full text here)

  15. Anthony Lewis, Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment (2007)
  16. Robert W.T. Martin, Government by Dissent: Protest, Resistance, and Radical Democratic Thought in the Early American Republic (2013)
  17. Kate Millett, Sexual Politics (1970)
  18. Jack Newfield, editor, American Rebels (2003)
  19. The Port Huron Statement: The Visionary Call of the 1960s Revolution (1962, 2005)
  20. Michael Ratner & Margaret Ratner Kunstler, Hell No: Your Right to Dissent in 21st-century America (2011)
  21. Charles Reich, The Greening of America (1964)
  22. Austin Sarat, editor, Dissent in Dangerous Times (2005)
  23. Steven Shiffrin, Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America (2010)
  24. Herbert Storing, editor, The Complete Anti-Federalist (1981)
  25. Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent (2003)
  26. Henry David Thoreau, Jeffrey S. Cramer, editor, Essays (2013)
  27. Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991)
  28. Ralph Young, Dissent: The History of an American Idea (2015)
  29. Howard Zinn, Declarations of Independence: Cross-Examining American Ideology (1990)

51CmbungqBL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_Forthcoming Books on Dissent

  1. Melvin Urofsky, Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue (Pantheon, October 13, 2015)
  2. Stephen D. Solomon, Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech (St. Martin’s Press (April 26, 2016)
  3. Thomas Grace, Kent State: Death and Dissent in the Long Sixties (University of Massachusetts Press, January 14, 2016)
  4. Maria Rovisco & Jonathan Corpus Ong, editors, Taking the Square: Mediated Dissent and Occupations of Public Space (Rowman & Littfield, April 2016)
  5. Wendy B. Scott & Linda S. Greene, I Dissent!: The Dissenting Opinions of Justice Thurgood Marshall (Carolina Academic Press, March 11, 2016)
  6. Thomas Grace, Kent State: Death and Dissent in the Long Sixties (University of Massachusetts Press, January 14, 2016)

* * * *

 [I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought — not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. — Holmes, dissenting in United States v. Schwimmer (1929)

Editorial_cartoon_depicting_Charles_Darwin_as_an_ape_(1871)Books of and on Religious Dissent

  1. Margaret H. Bacon, The Quiet Rebels: The Story of the Quakers in America (1969)
  2. John M. Barry, Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul (2012)
  3. Nicholas P. Miller, The Religious Roots of the First Amendment: Dissenting Protestants and the Separation of Church and State (2012)
  4. William Lee Miller, The First Liberty, Expanded and Updated: The First Liberty: America’s Foundation in Religious Freedom (2003)
  5. Martha Nussbaum, Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality (2010)
  6. Shawn Francis Peters, Judging Jehovah’s Witnesses: Religious Persecution and the Dawn of the Rights Revolution (2000)
  7. John Ragosta, Wellspring of Liberty: How Virginia’s Religious Dissenters Helped Win the American Revolution & Secured Religious Liberty (2010)
  8. Stephen Stein, Communities of Dissent: A History of Alternative Religions in America (2003)
  9. Roger Williams, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience (1644)
  10. John Winthrop, A Short History of the Rise, Reign, and Ruin of the Antinomians, Familists, and Libertines (1644)
Bob Dylan & Joan Baez (credit: SVA Picture Collection)

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez (credit: SVA Picture Collection)

Songs of Dissent (YouTube clips)

  1. Tracy Chapman, Talkin’ bout a Revolution
  2. Sam Cooke, A Change is Gonna Come
  3. Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, Ohio
  4. Bob Dylan, Masters of War
  5. Dylan, The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll
  6. Dylan, The Times They Are A-Changin
  7. Peter Gabriel, Biko
  8. Marvin Gay, What’s Goin On?
  9. Woody Guthrie, This Land is Your Land
  10. Billie Holiday, Strange Fruit
  11. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis (feat. Mary Lambert), Same Love 
  12. Barry McGuire, Eve of Destruction (Reply: Barry Sadler, Ballad of the Green Berets)
  13. N.W.A., Fuk Da The Police
  14. Phil Ochs, I Ain’t Marching Anymore
  15. The Plastic Ono Band, Give Peace a Chance
  16. Public Enemy, Fight the Power
  17. Nina Simome

             Nina Simone

    Rage Against the Machine, Killing in the Name

  18. Pete Seeger sings Woody Guthrie Deportee
  19. Seeger, We Shall Overcome
  20. Nina Simone, Mississippi Goddam
  21. Todd Snider, Ballad of the Kingsmen 
  22. Buffalo Springfield, For What It’s Worth
  23. Buffy St Marie, Universal Soldier
  24. U2, Sunday Bloody Sunday
  25. Suzanne Vega, Luka
  26. The Wailers, Get Up, Stand Up

Last Scheduled FAN #73: “D.C. Circuit strikes down SEC “conflict minerals” rule by 2-1 margin

Next Scheduled FAN #75: September 2, 2015

4

Why Was There No Bill of Rights in the Constitution?

As promised, here come the posts about the Bill of Rights.

One question that naturally arises is why did the Constitutional Convention not include a bill of rights in its proposal, especially given that this omission helped rally the Anti-Federalists?  Here are a couple of thoughts on that:

1.  Some of the delegates (most notably Madison) thought that a bill of rights was either unnecessary or harmful.

2.  Some of them hailed from states that did not have a bill of rights in their state constitution.  It is easy to see why many of these folks would not have thought the issue important.

3.  The delegates had more pressing concerns, such as how congressional representation should look or how the President would be chosen.

4.  The first suggestion to have a bill of rights came from George Mason just five days before the Convention adjourned.

As anyone who has run a lengthy meeting or process knows, complex suggestions that come at the end often get ignored or rejected because people are tired and eager to finish.  Mason may have anticipated this problem, as he added (somewhat hilariously) that it would only take “a few hours” to write a satisfactory bill of rights. Perhaps, then, we owe the lack of a bill of rights in 1787 to nothing more than the failure to suggest the idea in July or June.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 73 (First Amendment News) D.C. Circuit strikes down SEC “conflict minerals” rule by 2-1 margin

Yesterday, the DC Circuit handed down its ruling in National Association of Manufacturers v. SECThe case involves a First Amendment challenge brought by the National Association of Manufacturers concerning the SEC’s conflict minerals disclosure rule, which requires companies to publicly disclose their use of conflict minerals that originated in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country. “Conflict minerals” are minerals mined in conditions of armed conflict and human rights violations, particularly in the DRC.

A. Raymond Randolph (photo by Adrian R. Rowan)

Judge  Raymond Randolph (photo by Adrian R. Rowan)

By a 2-1 margin, the court ruled that the SEC disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment. Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph wrote the majority opinion which Judge David Sentelle joined. Judge Sri Srinivasan dissented.

The case was reheard in light of the court’s ruling in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (D.C. Cir. 2014) (en banc) and its treatment of Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio (1985).

“Using Zauderer’s relaxed standard of review,” said Judge Randolph, “AMI held that the federal government had not violated the First Amendment when it forced companies to list on the labels of their meat cuts the country in which the animal was born, raised, and slaughtered. The AMI court therefore overruled the portion of our decisions in NAM, R.J. Reynolds, and National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB holding that the analysis in Zauderer was confined to government compelled disclosures designed to prevent the deception of consumers.” In yesterday’s ruling, the majority declared that the issue then before it was “whether Zauderer, as now interpreted in AMI, reaches compelled disclosures that are unconnected to advertising or product labeling at the point of sale.”

Judge Randolph concluded that “Zauderer has no application to this case.This puts the case in the same posture as in our initial opinion when we determined that Zauderer did not apply, but for a different reason. As we ruled in our initial decision, we need not decide whether ‘strict scrutiny or the Central Hudson test for commercial speech’ applies. For the reasons we gave in that opinion, the SEC’s ‘final rule does not survive even Central Hudson’s intermediate standard.’ We need not repeat our reasoning in this regard.” (footnotes omitted)

To buttress the majority’s First Amendment argument, Judge Randolph added: “But given the flux and uncertainty of the First Amendment doctrine of commercial speech, and the conflict in the circuits regarding the reach of Zauderer, we think it prudent to add an alternative ground for our decision. It is this. Even if the compelled disclosures here are commercial speech and even if AMI’s view of Zauderer governed the analysis, we still believe that the statute and the regulations violate the First Amendment.” (footnotes omitted) The majority thus concluded that “the Commission’s final rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 56,362-65, violate[s] the First Amendment to the extent the statute and rule require regulated entities to report to the Commission and to state on their website that any of their products have ‘not been found to be ‘DRC conflict free.’’”

Judge Sri Srinivasan

Judge Sri Srinivasan

Writing in dissent, Judge Srinivasan argued that “[i]ssuers of securities must make all sorts of disclosures about their products for the benefit of the investing public. No one thinks that garden-variety disclosure obligations of that ilk raise a significant First Amendment problem. So here, there should be no viable First Amendment objection to a requirement for an issuer to disclose the country of origin of a product’s materials—including, say, whether the product contains specified minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or an adjoining country, the site of a longstanding conflict financed in part by trade in those minerals. Such a requirement provides investors and consumers with useful information about the geographic origins of a product’s source materials. Indeed, our court, sitting en banc, recently relied on “the time-tested consensus that consumers want to know the geographical origin of potential purchases” in upholding a requirement for companies to identify the source country of food products. Am. Meat Inst. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric. It is hard to see what is altogether different about another species of “geographical origin” law requiring identification of products whose minerals come from the DRC or adjoining countries.”

The Liberal Divide Widens — Abrams & Post on the Vices vs Virtues of Reed Ruling Read More

4

Birthright Citizenship

As the presidential primary season is here, that means that we are again seeing Republican candidates making the claim that Congress can and should abolish birthright citizenship by statute (Hello, Mr. Trump).  Senator David Vitter, for example, has introduced “The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015” to do just that.

As I explained in an article several years ago, such a statute would be unconstitutional.  As John Bingham and others said at the time, the law was well-established that virtually all free people born here were citizens, and slavery was an unacceptable exception to that rule.  There were only two other exceptions at common law.

1.  Children born here to foreign diplomats.

2.  Children born here to foreign troops engaged in hostile action against the United States.

Neither of these narrow categories apply to the children born here to illegal aliens.  Their parents are not part of a hostile military force, even if people sometimes loosely call them “invaders.”

A close reading of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment confirms this view.  Illegal aliens receive equal protection and are deemed to be under the “jurisdiction” of the states.  So you cannot turn around and say that the same illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the Citizenship Clause.

UPDATE:  I corrected this post to fix some errors that were in the first version.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
15

FAN 72 (First Amendment News) Megyn Kelly — Bold Defender of Free Speech Freedoms

In America we stand for liberty, and freedom to offend, to provoke, to persuade, and to defy. — Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

Megyn Kelly

Though she is a news anchor, she is very much in the news these days. She is the object of a national discussion about women. And it all stemmed from a pointed, polite, and entirely appropriate  question she posed to the most outspoken candidate currently seeking to be President of the United States.

She is, of course, Fox’s Megyn Kelly, the one who has a TV following of 2.8 million followers. Before entering the world of journalism, Ms. Kelly held her able own at the Jones Day law firm.

Her calling card: Feisty, informed, incredulous, and quick-witted. Make of her what you will — too conservative, too blond, or maybe too tough on the likes of Karl RoveDick Cheney and Donald Trump. As for the Trump flap, Ms. Kelly stood her free-press ground: ““I certainly will not apologize for doing good journalism, so I’ll continue doing my job without fear or favor,” she told viewers of The Kelly File. By the same journalistic measure, recall Ms. Kelly’s skepticism, which proved to be founded, concerning Duke University’s alleged sexual assault incident.

However you cast her, there is also this: Megyn Kelly is bullish on the First Amendment. While we still need to hear more from her on any variety of free-speech issues, what we do know at this point is that she is a woman who yields no ground when it come to our First Freedom.

[N]o matter how abhorrent one might find another’s words, in this country, we defend their right to say them. Standing up for that principle is not an endorsement of the controversial speech. It is promoting a value at the very core of who we are.  Megyn Kelly

There’s a spark of Nat Hentoff in her steadfast commitment to free speech. Just consider her response to a claim made by TV critic Howard Kurtz: “There’s a reason free speech is in Amendment number one. It goes to the core of our principles as Americans and what we stand for. You can hate the message, you can hate everything they’re saying … that is allowed in the United States of America, because, as the Supreme Court once put it, the answer to speech you do not like is not less speech. It’s more speech,”

Mr. Kelly & Mr. O'Reilly

Ms. Kelly & Mr. O’Reilly

When it comes to free speech, the TV news anchor and commentator is willing to go toe-to-toe with  anyone, even if that someone is Bill O’Reilly: “The relevnt question is not [whether] those under attack say something offensive, the relevnt question is what we do about a group that wants to kill us for exercising our contitutional rights.” (See also here)

Before the recent Trump flap, she gave the blustery billionaire a civics lesson: “What do we stand for as Americans if not freedom of speech and the ability to express yourself?”

Not surprisingly, some in the First Amendment community are taking note of Ms. Kelly and her views on free speech.

Alan Dershowitz: “Megyn Kelly has demonstrated how the First Amendment can be used to expose the real views of candidates. She provokes, and she succeeds. Keep it up.” (see also here)

Nadine Strossen: “As a law professor, I join Prof. Alan Dershowitz in awarding Megyn Kelly an A for her solid understanding of core First Amendment principles that Justices across the ideological spectrum have consistently upheld.  As a civil libertarian, I award her an A+ for her fearless, impassioned, and eloquent defense of those principles when too many others – also across the ideological spectrum – seek to trim back our First Amendment rights in response to what the Supreme Court has called “the heckler’s veto,” but what Megyn has correctly referred to as “the assassin’s veto.”

Robert Corn-Revere: “Megyn Kelly provides a clear and consistent reminder that the right to free expression includes the right to offend, and, in fact, that right cannot exist when some assert a right not to be offended.  Ms. Kelly recognizes that the role of some people in the marketplace of ideas may be mainly to serve as bad examples – but that is the only way the system can work effectively.  Everyone should have their say, and people will choose what ideas to accept or to reject.”

“Kelly speaks in a jazz-improv progression of italics, all-caps and boldface.” That is how Jim Rutenberg portrayed her in a recent and lengthy New York Times magazine profile titled “The Megyn Kelly Moment.” There is truth there provided one adds the word informed.

Ms. Kelly & Richard Fowler

Ms. Kelly & Richard Fowler

When it comes to free speech, her passion tracks her informed grasp of her subject. Simply consider her exchange with Richard Fowler when they were discussing the “Draw Muhammad” cartoon contest: “The more offensive speech is, Richard, the more protection it needs. That’s how the First Amendment works. We can defend the First Amendment right to say it without aligning ourselves with the message.” She took exception, strong exception, to notion that Americans should be squeamish or apologetic about their exercise of their First Amendment rights. She took even strainer exception to those who counseled otherwise.

In much the same vein, she took the Catholic League’s President, Bill Donohue, to task over his criticism of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. With finger pointed and eyes scanning, she quoted approvingly from Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s 1988 majority opinion in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell: “[T]he freedom to speak one’s mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty – and thus a good unto itself – but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole.” [quoting Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. (1984)]

Ms. Kelly & Professor Eugene Volokh

Ms. Kelly & Professor Eugene Volokh

In a May 7, 2015 program, Kelly found a First Amendment ally in UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh. At the outset of that program she was emphatic: “The terrorist point was to shut us up, not just the organizers of the [Draw Muhammed Cartoon Contest] but also any American who danes to disagree with their  way of life or thinking. . . . In this country we have every right to say what we want to say about Muhammed or about anyone else for that matter.” Volokh agreed: “People are free to engage in much more offensive speech than that.” He went on to explain how the contours of modern free speech law were consistent with Ms. Kelly’s views and how such speech had value as “a reaffirmation of our free speech rights . . . “

Will her commitment continue? Will she vacillate when other tough First Amendment issues are presented to her? Who knows?  That said, it seems likely that Ms. Kelly will become an even grander figure in the world of free speech in the days and months ahead.

 See here for a listing of Ms. Kelly’s various comments concerning the First Amendment.

Opinion in Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Adminstration Read More

1

Griswold and Abortion

This part of the oral argument speaks for itself:

Justice Black: Would your argument with reference to all these things you’ve been talking about relating to privacy and so forth, would invalidate all laws that punish people for bringing about abortions?

Mr. Emerson: No, I think it would not cover the abortion laws or the sterilization laws, Your Honor.

Those – that conduct does not occur in the privacy of the home.

Justice Black: There is some privacy, as a rule, and the individual doesn’t usually want it made known, it’s a very private thing.

Mr. Emerson: Well, that aspect of it is true, Your Honor, but those are offenses which do not involve the type of enforcement apparatus as to what goes on in the home that this —

Justice Black: Part of it goes on in the home, undoubtedly?

Mr. Emerson: Part of it does, Your Honor, but the conduct that is being prohibited in the abortion cases takes place outside of the home, normally.

There is no violation of the sanctity of the home.

Justice Brennan: Well, apart from that, Mr. Emerson, I take it abortion involves killing the life of a being, doesn’t it?

Isn’t that a rather different problem from contraception?

Mr. Emerson: Oh, yes, of course.

Justice Brennan: And isn’t it different in the sense of the State’s power to deal with it?

Mr. Emerson: Oh, yes.

Of course, the substantive offense is quite different here.

Justice Black: Are you saying that all abortions involve killing or murder?

Mr. Emerson: Well I don’t know whether you need characterize it that way, but it involves taking what has begun to be a life.

Justice Black: But the State thinks each of them is wrong, and it passes a law to forbid it being done.

It relates to a pretty closely analogous situation [Inaudible]

Mr. Emerson: Yes, Your Honor, but that case is different from this situation because in the abortion cases Connecticut does not apply this moral principle.

It is the use of an instrument to prevent birth taking place, but they do not apply the moral principle that it can never be done.

In Connecticut, abortion is allowed where it is necessary to save the life of the mother or the child.

So that the basic moral principle that Connecticut is trying to enforce here, they simply pay no attention to in their abortion laws.

It’s a completely inconsistent application of the principle.

They don’t take it seriously in the abortion cases, only in contraception cases.

1

Lochner What Now?

I hesitate to post about Lochner v. New York, as David Bernstein over on Volokh is the expert on the case.  But I was listening to oral argument in Griswold v. Connecticut today, and I came across this interesting exchange.

Thomas Emerson, arguing on behalf of Griswold, told that Court that he was not asking the Justices to revive Lochner.  Justice Hugo Black responded that “it sounds to me like you’re asking us to follow the constitutional philosophy of that case.”  Black then said:

“That was the one that held that it was unconstitutional, as I recall it, for a state to regulate the size of loaves of bread . . . . because people were being defrauded, was that it?”

Well, not exactly.  Lochner was about the regulation of maximum hours for bakers.  Maybe Justice Black was just old and forgetful at this point, but to me this is further evidence that Lochner was just not that well known in 1965.

3

The Bill of Rights in World War Two

18339_150pxI came across a speech that Fiorello LaGuardia, the famed Mayor of New York, gave on Bill of Rights Day in 1941. I thought his analysis was interesting, especially with respect to the Second Amendment:

“Could Hitler, the Mikado [Emperor Hirohito], or Mussolini remain in power if their people had freedom of speech?  Of course not. Could their governments retain power if they had a provision as to the right to bear arms?  Could they last at all if their people were free to assemble and discuss public issues?  Could they maintain concentration camps and continue a policy of persecution if they had a proviso for indictment and trial by jury.  Not at all. Could they for a moment have freedom of religion when the Mikado and Hitler are deluded into believing that they are the Ersatz for the Almighty”