FAN 194.4 (First Amendment News) John Paul Schnapper-Casteras Responds to Seidman’s “Can Free Speech Be Progressive?”

News item: Wendy Kaminer, The ACLU Retreats From Free Expression — The organization declares that speech it doesn’t like can ‘inflict serious harms’ and ‘impede progress,’ Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2018


John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

Seidman underplays the crucial importance of First Amendment principles to the civil rights movement and the practice of protesting. The twentieth century is replete with examples of how activists, authors, and attorneys can spark meaningful and lasting change—on both sides of the aisle. — John Paul Schnapper-Casteras

The online dialogue continues over at First Amendment Watch with today’s posting of John Schnapper-Casteras’  response to Michael Seidman’s “Can Free Speech be Progressive?

Additional posts will appear at the start of next week:

Monday, June 25:                      Jane Bambauer
Tuesday, June 26:                     Ronald R.K. Collins
Wednesday, June 27:              Richard Delgado
Thursday, June 28:                  Mike Seidman:  Rejoinder
Friday, June 29 onward:        Reader responses

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    “Are there progressive leaders marauding about advocating the use of force or the advent of tyranny? Lord I hope not – and not that I have ever met.”

    He’s been living in a cave? He’s not even a bit introspective about the implications of Seidmans’ hostility towards freedom of speech?

    I mean, sure, ‘progressive’ leaders don’t SAY, “tyranny, rah, rah, rah”. But they’re routinely dismissive of the liberties that stand in the way of tyranny. The violation of which is the very definition of tyranny.

    And, say, was anyone invited to this shindig who didn’t think “progressivism” was a good thing?