Category: General Law

2

11 Reasons Not To Enforce Your Trade Secret

Colonel_Sanders_Rapstar-1I’m strangely fascinated by the recent “revelation” about Colonel Sanders’ secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken. His nephew showed a journalist a handwritten list that was left behind by Sanders’ second wife that listed 11 herbs and spices in specific proportions.  Yum Brands, which owns KFC, denies that this is the secret recipe.

This situation exposes a basic problem in trade secret law, which is that the available remedies are often pretty inadequate. Suppose this is the secret recipe.  Suing Sanders’ nephew will not get you much in damages–he’s not wealthy.  You can’t get an injunction–the information is out.  Maybe the only thing you can do is pretend that this is not the real recipe and not bring an enforcement action at all. (Granted, you can say that the real value of KFC is in its brand rather than its secret recipe, so a revelation like this actually causes little or no harm, but I’m not sure Yum thinks so.)

More broadly, trade secret law suffers from the problem that the owner of the information really needs an ex ante remedy akin to a prior restraint.  Once the secret information is out, there’s not much that can be done. Acting before that happens, though, is often impossible or requires keen anticipation skills. Perhaps this is why, as a practical matter, confidential information is protected more effectively through physical security measures, extra compensation, etc.

1

FAN 120 (First Amendment News) Snapshots of David Cole #2: Chipping Away at Citizens United

If Citizens United is overturned, it will be because of the sustained efforts of critics in civil society to critique it, educate the public about why it’s wrong, and show through local initiatives that alternative reforms are possibleDavid Cole, August 22, 2016

This is the second post concerning  David Cole, the ACLU’s New National Legal Director (first post here).  In this post the focus is on Professor Cole’s views on the First Amendment and campaign finance laws, with a particular focus on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

This past April Professor Cole published an article in The Atlantic entitled “How to Reverse Citizens United.” Here are a few excerpts from that article (subheadings were added):

Change in the Court: New Opportunities & Challenges 

Professor David Cole

Professor David Cole

“Now, with a new Justice in the offing, the prospect of reversing Citizens United, among other Roberts Court decisions, seems suddenly larger, more plausible: For campaign-finance-reform proponents, the brass ring seems within reach.”

“But the matter is not so simple. Even if Scalia is replaced by a more liberal justice, the Court’s campaign-finance rules will not be easily reversed. The precedents extending First Amendment protection to campaign spending date back to 1976, long before Scalia became a judge. The Court generally follows precedent, and overrules past decisions only rarely, even as justices come and go. A new justice will not be sufficient.”

Incremental Steps: The Slow March to Victory

“If campaign-finance reform similarly succeeds, it will not be through dramatic measures like the current proposals to pass a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United. Nor will it be through a quixotic presidential campaign, like Lawrence Lessig’s short-lived run on a platform devoted almost exclusively to electoral reform. Constitutional law is more typically changed through a long process of smaller, incremental steps. If the various groups now seeking to fix the problem of money in politics are to prevail, they would do well to take a page from the gun-rights and marriage-equality playbook.”

Start with the States

“Some promising campaign-finance initiatives are already appearing at the state and local levels. Maine, Connecticut, Arizona, Seattle, and New York City have each adopted generous public-financing schemes to reduce the influence of private wealth. New York City, for example, matches small donations six-to-one for those candidates who agree to contribution and spending limits. Maine offers a public grant to candidates who raise a qualifying number of $5 donations and then agree to abstain from further private fund-raising. In November, Seattle voters approved a first-of-its-kind ballot initiative that will provide every voter with four $25 “democracy vouchers,” to be distributed as they wish among candidates who agree to abide by spending limits. By amplifying the contributions of ordinary citizens, reducing candidates’ reliance on Big Money, and enticing candidates to accept voluntary limits on their spending, these laws are meant to encourage politicians to pay attention to all their constituents, not just the wealthy ones.”

The Role of Scholarship

“Scholarship could similarly lay the groundwork for a new approach to campaign finance. One promising critique of the Court’s recent rulings concedes that spending restrictions limit First Amendment rights, but maintains that the constitutional interest in protecting speech is outweighed by other compelling considerations. Although the Court’s most recent rulings assert that the only legitimate basis for restricting campaign spending is curtailing bribery—what the Court calls ‘quid pro quo corruption’—a number of scholars are persuasively pressing a broader understanding of the state’s interests. For example, Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham, has shown that the Constitution’s framers expressed an active desire to fight corruption, a category they understood to include, beyond mere bribery, the undue influence of wealth on politics. Robert Post, the dean of Yale’s law school, argues that ensuring ‘electoral integrity’ is essential to a functioning democracy, and justifies limits on the free flow of campaign cash. And in an important new book, Plutocrats United, Richard Hasen, a law professor at UC Irvine, maintains that the state’s interest in equality can justify rules aimed at countering money’s distortion of politics. Each of these arguments could provide a path toward a constitutional jurisprudence that allows states and Congress more leeway in regulating campaign spending.”

Related Articles by David Cole

  1.  The Supreme Court’s Billion-Dollar Mistake, New York Review of Books, January 19, 2015
  2. How Corrupt Are Our Politics?, New York Review of Books, September 25, 2014
  3. The Roberts Court vs. Free Speech, New York Review of Books, August 19, 2010

See also Jameel Jaffer, How Constitutional Change Happens: Q&A With David Cole, ACLU, April 4, 2016:

Cole: “My own sense is that incrementalism is pretty much all there is. The NRA, the gay rights groups, and the human rights groups all succeeded in significant part by acting incrementally. Campaign finance reform today is similarly proceeding incrementally, introducing clean election and public financing and disclosure reforms in the most receptive states first, and then seeking to spread those wins to other states. A full-frontal attack on Citizens United is unlikely to prevail, but attacking it around the edges shows more promise.”

 See generally, Jeffery Rosen Interview with David Cole: How Citizen Activists Can Make Constitutional Law, National Constitutional Center, April 18, 2016 (on YouTube) (discussion focuses on activist and litigation strategies)

Proposed Federal Law Would Ban Revenge Porn Read More

2

The Next Supreme Court Term

We are within six weeks of the start of the Court’s next Term, which promises to be two terms in one.  The first will consist of eight Justices.  The second will consist of nine, though when and by whom is unclear.

This leads me to wonder if next year the Court will have to forego its traditional custom of issuing all of its merits opinions by the end of June.  If there are deadlocks in cases in the first portion of the Term, presumably those cases will be held over for another argument in the second portion. If there are several of those (or if the new Justice is not confirmed until later in the Spring), can the Court finish its business by the end of June?  Seems doubtful.

It’s worth noting that Judge Merrick Garland is currently on one of the world’s longest paid vacations, as he must by tradition be recused from all cases so long as his nomination is pending.  I wonder what he does all day.

1

Law and the Modern Mind–Unanswerable Questions

I am honored to comment on Susanna Blumenthal’s new book. One of the many benefits of reading Law and the Modern Mind is that it offers a window into a range of common law topics from the nineteenth century, including contracts, torts, criminal law, and trusts and estates. The sheer breath of Blumenthal’s research is astounding, especially as she delves into the philosophy and psychology behind the presumption of rationality.

The book looks at how lawyers, judges, and scholars tried to craft exceptions to the presumption. One theme that really stood out for me is how society often struggles to reconcile unusual beliefs with rational behavior.  In effect, someone who has an idiosyncratic view (say, leaving all of their wealth to the family cat) can get characterized as irrational as a way of justifying a rejection of the choice that they rationally made.  Thus, the inquiry into rationality is sometimes a judicial tool for regulating behavior rather than a genuine inquiry into a person’s mental state. (There are lots of examples of this in the book.)

Even when the search into another’s mind is genuine, though, Blumenthal’s examination shows how difficult that task is. For criminal law in particular, the problem was identified in Ancient Greece. Can a rational person knowingly commit an evil act? Don’t people who do something evil think that they are doing good? Ron Rosebaum’s extraordinary book on Explaining Hitler argues that this claim can be made about Hitler himself, as as times he seemed to think he was helping humanity by killing Jews. The law faces this sort of dilemma from time to time when someone does something particular vicious. Must a person be insane if they, say, shoot up a school?  Why would a rational person do that? Or is it just too awful to admit that rational people would do that?

Blumenthal’s fascinating case studies provide lots of food for thought, but it’s not as if the twentieth or twenty-first centuries have solved these problems.  John Hinckley’s attempt to kill President Reagan in 1981 led to a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” (Blumenthal mentions that Charles Guiteau, who assassinated James Garfield in 1881, made a similar unsuccessful claim at his trial.)  Perhaps this was the correct assessment of Hinckley’s mental state then (recently he was released to the custody of his parents) or maybe it just struck people as too ridiculous to think that a rational person would shoot a president to impress an actress. (Though that seems less implausible now than it probably did then.)

This is a tour de force on a very challenging subject. I look forward to the rest of the Symposium.

 

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 119 (First Amendment News) — Snapshots of David Cole, the ACLU’s New National Legal Director

Professor David Cole

Professor David Cole

Now that Professor David Cole has been named the new national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, I plan to do several posts on him and some of his views on the First Amendment.

As some may know, David Cole was the main author of the briefs in two landmark flag-burning cases:  Texas v. Johnson (1989); and United States v. Eichman (1990). William Kunstler, who argued both cases, commented that as the author of those briefs Cole was “the intellectual architect of the courtroom victories.” (See also Collins & Chaltain, We Must not be Afraid to be Free.)

David Cole likewise argued Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (1999) (First Amendment challenge to the selective enforcement of the immigration law against Palestinian immigrants based upon their political associations and activities). National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998) was another First Amendment case Professor Cole argued (First Amendment challenge to NEA’s politically-based denial of federal funding to four performance artists whose works address issues of sexuality, and to the 1990 statutory provision requiring NEA grants to made “taking into consideration general standards of decency.”) He also served on the Advisory Board of The Free Expression Policy Project.

His most recent book, Engines of Liberty: The Power of Citizen Activists to Make Constitutional Law (2016) (see also his remarks at Politics & Prose Bookstore, April 2016) (YouTube)

* * * * 

For now, let us turn to Professor Cole’s arguments to the Court in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the “material support” to terrorist organizations case.  Below are some selected excerpts from the oral arguments in that case:

Core political speech

Mr. Cole: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: This as-applied challenge asks whether the government can make it a crime for Ralph Fertig and the Humanitarian Law Project to speak in association with the Kurdistan Workers Party.

Specifically, they seek to advocate for legal reform in Congress and the UN, to write and distribute articles supportive of Kurdish rights, to inform the Kurds of their international human rights and remedies, and to advise them on peaceful conflict resolution.

It is undisputed that the Kurdistan Workers Party engages in a wide range of lawful activities and that plaintiffs seek to support only lawful ends.

The government has a concededly compelling interest in combatting terrorism, yet it has not even tried to defend these prohibitions under strict scrutiny.

Instead, it rests its entire case on the proposition that criminalizing plaintiffs’ speech is a regulation of conduct, not speech, and therefore can be upheld under O’Brien. . . .

Justice Stevens: But, Mr. Cole, don’t you agree that some of the speech could be regulated?

Mr. Cole: –Some of my clients’ speech?

Justice Stevens: Some of the speech of your client.

Mr. Cole: I don’t think — I don’t think any of it could be prohibited, Your Honor, unless the government can satisfy the stringent scrutiny that this Court applies when Congress seeks to prohibit pure speech. . . .

Justice Stevens: You think all of the speech at issue is protected?

Mr. Cole: –I think that certainly all of the speech that I’ve just identified, which is the core–

 . . . . It’s core — and I think the reason, Your Honor, is it is core political speech on issues of public concern.

It is advocating only lawful, peaceable activities.

This Court has never upheld the criminal prohibition of lawful speech on issues of public concern.

“Money is different”

Justice Kennedy: Well, could the government, I assume — I assume you will say NGO or other organization or person from giving tsunami aid to one of these organizations, from giving them money?

Mr. Cole: I think money is different, Your Honor.

Justice Kennedy: Could they — could the government prohibit that?

Mr. Cole: I think money is different because it’s  . . . conduct, not speech.

Make Distinctions: Aid, support & membership

Justice Scalia: Any assistance you provide to these organizations cannot be separated from assistance to their terrorist activities.

Mr. Cole: Well, Your Honor, that is precisely the argument that the United States made to this Court in Scales.

And here I’m quoting from the government’s brief:

“Active membership can be proscribed even though the activity be expended along lines not otherwise illegal, since active support of any kind aids the organization in achieving its own illegal purposes. “

That was with respect to an organization that Congress spent 10 years studying, made findings that it was an international conspiracy directed and controlled by the Soviet Union with the aim of overthrowing the United States by force and violence, using terrorism.

And, nonetheless, this Court in Scales held you’ve got to distinguish between that aid and support and membership which is furthering the lawful activities and that which is furthering the illegal activities; otherwise you are penalizing the exercise of lawful speech.

The Court said the same thing in De Jonge.

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Cole, as I remember, Scales upheld a conviction, wasn’t–

Mr. Cole: It did, Justice Ginsburg, but only because it interpreted the statute to be — to be limited to specific . . . members — active membership that is specifically intended to further the illegal ends of the group, precisely–

. . . .

Speech Tantamount to Material Support

Justice Kennedy: Suppose the speech is tantamount to material support in that it legitimizes, encourages, or strengthens the organization.

Mr. Cole: Well, two things in response to that, Justice Kennedy.First, that is what the United States argued in Scales. And, again, the Court, not only in Scales but in a host of cases striking down Communist Party statute, said you have to distinguish between aid that’s intended to further lawful activity and aid that’s intended to further illegal activity when it’s in the form of protected activity — association, here speech and association.

And, secondly–

Justice Stevens: In those cases, the real question was whether membership was enough, wasn’t it?

Mr. Cole: Active membership . . .  which the government says constitutes more than mere nominal membership.

Justice Kennedy: And this is support. It’s different.

Mr. Cole: Well, Your Honor, in De Jonge, one of these cases, one of this Court’s first First Amendment cases, the government argued that Mr. De Jonge aided the Communist Party in its illegal ends by conducting a meeting for them and being their lead speaker at the meeting.

And this Court said: We’ve got to look at what he did, and what — yes, he conducted the meeting; yes, he was a member of the Communist Party; yes, he solicited people to join the Communist Party.

But what did he do? He advocated lawful peaceable activities.

Justice Kennedy: But there wasn’t a statute on the books that prohibited material support–

Mr. Cole: Well, I don’t think it would–

Justice Kennedy: And here there is, and this is in aid of that prohibition.

Mr. Cole: Right, but Your Honor, what would — if Congress came along after the Communist Party cases and said, okay, you’ve said we can’t make it a crime to criminalize membership in the Communist Party; we are now going to make it a crime to speak in conjunction with the Communist Party — do you think the decisions would have come out any differently?I don’t think so, because this Court has said that speech is different from money, that it–

Justice Scalia: I think it’s very unrealistic to compare these terrorist organizations with the Communist Party. Those cases involved philosophy. The Communist Party was — was — was more than a — than an organization that — that had some unlawful ends. It was also a philosophy of — of — of extreme socialism.And — and many people subscribed to that philosophy. I don’t think that Hamas or any of these terrorist organizations represent such a philosophical organization.

Mr. Cole: Your Honor, this Court accepted Congress’s findings.Congress’s findings were not that this was a philosophical debating society, but that it was an international criminal conspiracy directed by our enemy to overthrow us through terrorism. . . .

Justice Scalia: They joined it for philosophical reasons. These terrorist organizations have very practical objectives. And the only reason for joining them or assisting them is to assist those practical objectives.

Mr. Cole: Well, I don’t think that’s — I don’t think that’s fair, Justice Scalia. The Humanitarian Law Project has no interest in furthering terrorism, but the Kurdistan Workers Party are the principal representatives of the — of the Kurds in Turkey. They do have an interest in protecting the rights of the Kurds. They do have an interest in encouraging the Kurdistan Workers Party to — to disavow violence and engage in lawful peaceful means of resolving their disputes . . . .

*  * Additional Materials  * * 

David Cole on the ‘Material Support’ Law and the Constitution, American Constitution Society, November 30, 2010 (YouTube)

David Cole, “The First Amendment’s Borders: The Place of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in First Amendment Doctrine,” 6 Harv. L. & Pol. Rev. 147 (2012)

James Bamford, David Cole & Margaret Russell — PATRIOT Acts I & II: New Assault on Liberty?, The Independent Institute, November 2003 (YouTube)

Ron Rotunda: “The ABA Overrules the First Amendment” Read More

1

Secret Service Investigations of Presidential Threats

Donald Trump’s recent comments about “Second Amendment people” raises an issue that I’ve wondered about for a long time. What standard does the Secret Service use in determining whether its agents need to contact someone who makes a threat against the President or a presidential candidate?  And what does the Secret Service do when they contact someone like that?

I ask these questions because there is a chilling quality to such a visit on political speech. Now the Secret Service does not visit every person who makes a crazy comment, as they lack the resources for that and correctly conclude that the vast majority of those statements are harmless. But are there written guidelines that help them assess this?  If so, what are they? And would there be a First Amendment claim, say against individual Secret Service agents, if someone felt that they were being unfairly targeted or harassed for things that they said?

7

Representing the Bill of Rights During the Cold War

Bill_of_Rights_1966_U.S._stamp.1Building on my prior post, I want to highlight this image. It is a stamp that was issued in 1966-67 to mark the 175th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. The design was by Herb Block, the longtime political cartoonist for The Washington Post, and was called “Freedom Checking Tyranny.” The mailed fist on the opposite side of the open hand is meant to evoke totalitarianism, which at the time was widely understood as communism.

I also find it amusing that the quote on the stamp is not in the Bill of Rights (and, as far as I know, does not come from any famous speech or Supreme Court opinion).

2

The Future of the Supreme Court

Every four years the tired claim is trotted out that the winner of the presidential election could appoint three or four Justices. In fact, no President has appointed this many Justices in a single term since Richard Nixon, but this may be the year where hyperbole is true.

We know that there is one vacant seat on the Court, but consider what might happen if Hillary Clinton is elected.  Justices Ginsburg and Breyer would have to doubt seriously that the Democrats would win a fourth consecutive term in the White House, something that last occurred in the 1940s. Thus, they would have a strong incentive to retire in the next few years rather than wait until 2020 or beyond.  That would create a total of three vacancies without including any unexpected change (say, if Justice Kennedy also decides to retire). Of course, Breyer and Ginsburg could decide to go with the example of Justice Stevens and stay until they are 90 years old, but that is unlikely.

Note that if Ginsburg and Breyer retire (say over the next two years), that would make Justice Sotomayor the senior member of the liberal bloc–a rather amazing development for someone who joined the Court only seven years ago.

0

Tribute to Lenny Bruce on the Occasion of the 50th Anniversary of His Death

This series is dedicated to the memory of John Sisko (1958-2016) —  artist, writer, teacher, gallerist, friend, and free-spirit. Sadly, his artistic tribute to Tom Paine never came to pass. Still, his last words revealed the measure of the man, his revolutionary grain: “I have lived my life creatively and uniquely and on my own terms.” Yes you did, John. 

____________________

IMG_4829

(credit: NYT)

To commemorate the 50th Anniversary of the death of America’s most uninhibited comedian, I have prepared five posts for the occasion. My interest in Bruce traces back to my book with David Skover, The Trials of Lenny Bruce (2002 & 2012 — 10th anniversary issue / NPR interview), followed by our successful petition to Governor George Patakai to posthumously pardon the comedian.  

Recent & Related 

bbc-blocks-dark

 “Lenny Bruce – In His Own, Unheard, Words,” BBC, July 30, 2016 (“Fifty years since Lenny Bruce died, Mark Steel explores his legacy in the 21st century, drawing on personal tape recordings from a newly established Lenny Bruce archive at Brandeis University, as well as classic clips from some of his ground-breaking comedy and social commentary routines. With contributions from Lenny’s daughter, Kitty Bruce, and from those who knew and wrote about him, including author Laurence Schiller.”)

Unknown

Philip Eil, “50 Years After His Death, Lenny Bruce’s Spirit Lives,” The Forward, August 1, 2016

Unknown

Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, and Kitty Bruce Speak Out About Their Fathers and the Fight for Free Speech in Comedy” (FIRE: Video/Podcast) (really a remarkable video)

Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, & Kitty Bruce

        Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, & Kitty Bruce

Can We Take a Joke? (FIRE documentary featuring Lenny Bruce)

Paul Krassner, Remembering Lenny Bruce, 50 years after his death, Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2016

 Alex Wohl, Standup Philosopher, Brandeis Magazine, Summer (2016)

(Credit: Vice Squad Mag., April, 1963)

(Credit: Vice Squad Mag., April, 1963)

0

Lenny Bruce – 50 Years Later: Still Funny & “Unsafe”

Warning: The man of whom you are about to read once offended many, and his words continue to do so today.  

Lenny Bruce died for our sins.

FileLenny-bruce-on-stage.jpgOkay, it’s just a joke.

Still, the uninhibited comedian’s legacy did have its redemptive side. After he died, fifty years ago today, no comedian was ever again prosecuted for word crimes uttered in a comedy club. By that cultural measure, Lenny Bruce became the patron saint of standup comedians who freely mock those who trade in hypocrisy.

Before there was Larry David, Penn Jillette, Margaret Cho, Lisa Lampanelli, Chris Rock, or George Carlin, there was Lenny Bruce. He was the quintessential take-no-prisoners comedian. His comedic fare was robust; his style avant-garde; his method crude-blue; and his message upset some and delighted others. Did he shock? – yes. Did he offend? – yes. And was he funny? – yes, outrageously so, at least at his best moments. It’s all in a new documentary titled Can We Take a Joke?

Taboo: That was his off-limits destination. En route he tore into hypocrisy with buzz-saw vigor. No matter the subject – race, religion, politics, or sex – Bruce gave no dime to the Sunday-pious crowd. But when one deals in the forbidden, when one mocks the righteous, and when one does so with razor-cutting humor, there are consequences.

Such as?

Lenny Bruce was prosecuted for obscenity in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York for his comedy club bits. At great professional and financial cost, he was nonetheless exonerated in all of the cases except the one in New York. By the time the New York club owner (Bruce’s co-defendant) successfully appealed his conviction, Lenny was dead (broke, and with a needle spiked in his arm). He died a convicted comedian – the last one in our history.

(ht: Chuck Harter]

(ht: Chuck Harter]

December 23, 2003. On that day New York Governor George Pataki posthumously pardoned Lenny Bruce. “Freedom of speech,” he declared, “is one of the greatest American liberties, and I hope this pardon serves as a reminder of the precious freedoms we are fighting to preserve as we continue to wage the war on terror.”

The people who must never have power are the humorless. — Christopher Hitchins

Have we remembered that “reminder”? Yes, and no.

On the one hand, we now enjoy an almost unprecedented degree of free-speech freedom. It is our American badge of liberty — that willingness to tolerate that with which we disagree. On the other hand, anything deemed offensive is today banned on many college campuses. The trend is to create “safe zones” where students are protected from ideas or words that might upset them.

At Clemson University, unwelcome “verbal . . . conduct of a sexual nature” constitutes “sexual harassment.” This definition includes a vast amount of protected speech such as a joke or comment that any student subjectively finds to be offensive.

At Clark University, its Code of Student Conduct prohibits “telling jokes based on a stereotype.” Of course, that is something Lenny Bruce often did in order to combat the kind of prejudice lurking behind offensive stereotyping.

Grinnell College bans “bias-motivated incidents,” which include “an expression of hostility against a person, group, or property thereof because of such person’s (or group’s) . . . religion . . .” By that measure, Bruce’s irreverent “Religions Incorporated” and “Christ and Moses” routines could be banned at Grinnell.

Florida State University’s “A Summons to Responsible Freedom” defines “Sexual Misconduct” to include “unwanted [or] unwelcome . . . sexual or gender-based . . . comments.” By that punitive gauge there is much in Bruce’s How to Talk Dirty and Influence People (1992, reissued 2016) that would catch the censorial eye.

And then there is the capper: Northeastern University’s acceptable use policy, which prohibits the electronic transmission of any material “which in the sole judgment of the University is offensive.” Lenny Bruce’s prosecutors used much the same subjective yardstick to indict him. If “Saint Lenny” were alive, he would have a devil of a time ripping into campus such speech codes, the ones that cabin the mind in solitary confinement.

When Bruce was posthumously pardoned, the comedian Tom Smothers said: “So many of us today owe so much to Lenny Bruce.” Indeed. Regrettably, it is a debt still owed on far too many campuses across this land. No joke!