Tagged: Civil Rights

0

Nation’s only History Book Festival returns to Lewes, DE — Sept. 28th & 29th

I had the great privilege of presenting at the 2017 History Book Festival. It was an absolute delight. The organizers and hosts were extraordinarily hospitable, the events were well attended and lively, the audience was bubbling over with questions. Overall, it was a terrific and memorable experience. Great start! And, to top it off, the town of Lewes is lovely.

Geoffrey StoneSex & the Constitution: Sex, Religion, & Law from America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century (2017)

___________________________________________

The nation’s only History Book Festival returns to Lewes, DE., for its second year.

History Book Festival Speakers

Friday Sept. 28th & Saturday Sept. 29th

KEYNOTE (Friday Evening Sept. 28th / tickets here) 

— Blanche Wiesen Cook

  •  Eleanor Roosevet: The War Years & After, 1939-1962 (vol. 3)

 Interviewed by Paul Sparrow, Director of the FDR Library

 Musical accompaniment by David Cieri, composer for the Ken Burns documentary on FDR

_________________Saturday Sept. 29th_________________

 Lighting the Fires of Freedom: African American Women in the Civil Rights Movement by Janet Dewart Bell 

 Young Benjamin Franklin: The Birth of Ingenuity by Nick Bunker

The Comeback: Greg LeMond, the True King of American Cycling, and a Legendary Tour de France by Daniel de Visé

Valley Forge by Bob Drury and Tom Clavin,

Dinner in Camelot: The Night America’s Greatest Scientists, Writers, and Scholars Partied at the Kennedy White House by Joseph A. Esposito

Tinderbox: The Untold Story of the Up Stairs Lounge Fire and the Rise of Gay Liberation by Robert W. Fieseler,

The Royal Art of Poison: Filthy Palaces, Fatal Cosmetic, Deadly Medicine, and Murder Most Foul by Eleanor Herman

— The Lost Locket of Lewes (children’s historical fiction) by Ilona E. Holland, Ed.D

Damnation Island: Poor, Sick, Mad, and Criminal in 19th-Century New York by Stacy Horn

Kosher USA: How Coke Became Kosher and Other Tales of Modern Food by Roger Horowitz

The Hunger (historical fiction), by Alma Katsu

The Kennedy Debutante (historical fiction) by Kerri Maher 

The Widows of Malabar Hill (historical fiction) by Sujata Massey 

Five for Freedom: The African American Soldiers in John Brown’s Army by Eugene L. Meyer

The Rise of Yeast: How the Sugar Fungus Shaped Civilization by Nicholas P. Money

Inspector Oldfield and the Black Hand Society: America’s Original Gangsters and the U.S. Postal Detective Service Who Brought Them to Justice by William Oldfield and Victoria Bruce

Delaware’s John Dickinson: The Constant Watchman of Liberty 

— Chesapeake Requiem: A Year with the Watermen of Vanishing Tangier Island by Earl Swift

Miles and Me by Quincy Troupe

Lust on Trial: Censorship and the Rise of American Obscenity in the Age of Anthony Comstock by Amy Werbel 

Not Our Kind (historical fiction) by Kitty Zeldis

1

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
0

Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein to be interviewed at Newesum on May 1st, Law Day — Public invited

Newseum, Wash., D.C.

A Law Day Conversation With Rod Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General of the United States
Tuesday, May 1, 2018 / 2:00 p.m.
Newseum, Walter and Leonore Annenberg Theater, Washington, D.C.

To commemorate Law Day, the Newseum Institute presents a special program featuring Rod Rosenstein, deputy attorney general of the United States, in a wide-ranging discussion on the rule of law, the First Amendment and the mission of the Department of Justice.

The conversation will be moderated by Ronald Collins, a constitutional law and First Amendment expert and the Harold S. Shefelman Scholar at the University of Washington School of Law.

Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein

Rosenstein was sworn in as the 37th Deputy Attorney General of the United States on April 26, 2017, and has served in the Department of Justice for nearly three decades under several presidents and attorneys general.

Law Day is held on May 1 every year to celebrate the role of law in our society and to cultivate a deeper understanding of the legal profession.

Register here (no admission charge) 4-18-18: SOLD OUT 

0

UCLA Law Review Vol. 64, Issue 6

Volume 64, Issue 6 (December 2017)
Articles

Inner-City Anti-Poverty Campaigns Anthony V. Alfieri 1374
Movement Lawyers in the Fight for Immigrant Rights Sameer M. Ashar 1464
From Stop and Frisk to Shoot and Kill: Terry v. Ohio’s Pathway to Police Violence Devon W. Carbado 1508
The Puzzle of Social Movements in American Legal Theory Scott L. Cummings 1554
Varieties of Constitutional Experience: Democracy and the Marriage Equality Campaign Nan D. Hunter 1662
Community in Conflict: Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash Reva B. Siegel 1728

 

Comments

Rebellious Social Movement Lawyering Against Traffic Court Debt Veryl Pow 1770
1

New Op-ed by Donna Lenhoff: Major reforms needed to make the “Me Too Movement” viable

Over the past few months, the #MeToo movement has exposed an epidemic of sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. But without substantial reforms to our legal system, that movement may be all for naught.

So begins an important new op-ed in today’s Washington Post.  The piece is titled: The #MeToo movement will be in vain if we don’t make these changes.

Donna Lenhoff

The author is Donna Lenhoff (more about her in a moment). This op-ed brings to the forefront legal issues central to the success of the “Me Too Movement.”

“What has become all too clear,” writes Lenhoff, “is that [Title VII and the mechanisms for enforcing it] — designed decades ago to redress and deter harassment and retaliation — are woefully inadequate, for four significant reasons.”

  1. First, while the threat of large damages can be effective in getting management to take preventive action, under Title VII, pain-and-suffering and punitive damages combined are capped. . . “
  2. “Second, many companies insist that harassment settlements be confidential. . . .”
  3. “Third, the agencies that enforce Title VII have never had the necessary resources . .  .”
  4. “Fourth, private litigation is quite rare considering the prevalence of workplace harassment. . . .”

There is more, much more, but you’ll have to read the entire op-ed. Suffice it to say that Lenhoff’s no-nonsense brand of progressive thinking is needed if real change is to occur.

Meanwhile, here is some info about Donna Lenhoff:

Lenhoff has worked for strong enforcement of laws against workplace discrimination from both inside and outside the federal government.  She served as Senior Civil Rights Advisor in the U.S. Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs during the Obama Administration, where she was responsible for updating 35+-year-old sex-discrimination regulations. 

As a staff attorney at the then-Women’s Legal Defense Fund, she was the first person to testify in Congress about sexual harassment. 

She lobbied for EEOC Guidelines on harassment and oversaw women’s groups’ amicus briefs in every major Supreme Court case involving harassment from 1978 to 2000. 

Lenhoff also lobbied for legislative changes to strengthen civil-rights and labor laws that help workers, including the 1991 Civil Rights Act, and led the coalition that advocated for the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. 

3

FAN 168.1 (First Amendment News) Prof. Alan Morrison Weighs in on Facts Issue in Cake Case

Earlier today I posted an issue of First Amendment News entited Resolution of wedding cake case — is it all about fashioning the facts?

In resposne to that, Professor Alan Morrison wrote to me inquiring how the factual dispute in the case might play out in the future, and then he raised this question: “Will this end up being a case in which parties can determine outcomes in the future by tailoring their speech and response?” Intrigued by that question, I invited Alan to elaborate. His comments are set out below. For the benefit of the reader, I have reinserted my five scenarios since Alan referenced them.

* * * * 

Ron Collins raises the interesting question of whether the facts in Masterpiece Cake case may play a very significant role in the outcome, based on which of (at least) his five scenarios  (dare I say “alternative facts”) the Court accepts. Presenting these alternative scenarios raises several thoughts that may be worth considering.

* * * * 

Scenario # 1: Gay couple walks into Christian bakery and attempts to buy a generic wedding cake from refrigerator display. Owner refuses to sell to them on religious grounds (oppsition to same-sex marriages).

Scenario # 2: Gay couple walks into Christian bakery and orders a generic wedding cake. Owner refuses to sell to them on religious grounds (oppsition to same-sex marriages).

Scenario # 3:  Gay couple walks into Christian bakery and asks if they design cakes for same sex couples. Owner says no. Couple then attempts to buy generic wedding cake. Owner refuses to sell to them on religious grounds (oppsition to same-sex marriages).

Scenario # 4: Gay couple walks into Christian bakery and orders a generic wedding cake. They then ask to purchase  two grooms to place on the cake. Owner refuses to sell to them on religious grounds (oppsition to same-sex marriages).

Scenario # 5: Gay couple walks into Christian bakery and asks if they will create and design a wedding cake for them. Owner refuses to sell to them on religious grounds (oppsition to same-sex marriages).

* * * * 

Prof. Alan Morrison (credit: GW Today_

It appears that the exchange between the buyers and the seller that gave rise to this case was very brief and was almost surely not carried out with the legal issue now before the Court in the minds of anyone.  From what I have read, the alternatives Ron discusses were not fleshed out in this exchange and so what each party now says it wanted may have no bearing on what, if anything, was going through their minds at the time.  To add to the uncertainty, the exchange was so brief, and perhaps infused with emotion on both sides, that any nuances now suggested were either not picked up or lost in the moment.

If the Court’s decision turns on which scenario it accepts as what actually happened, how much confidence should we have that the Court’s “facts” will be the “real” facts — whatever that means?  The only saving grace is that the remedy ordered does not include money damages and any injunction that is upheld is likely to be quite targetted, which brings me to my next thought.
Despite its emotional importance, this decision is likely to be of only modest significance, unless the Court takes an extreme position one way or the other. Suppose the Court says that artistic cake making is protected, but only if the baker is clear that this is a very limited exception. And assume further that cake makers — and perhaps florists and photographers — get the word and now know what they must say, and may not say, if they want to honor their consciences and avoid liability.  My hunch is that they will probably able to find a way to do that, and the cake buyers will still be able to get their cakes (and eat them too) in most situations.
Finally. I think (perhaps hope ) that this decision may have limited real world impact based on the fact that there are probably very few people in business who will turn away customers for reasons of conscience, not only because of the direct lost income, but because of what an adverse Internet posting may do for their business more generally.  And on the other side, will those few buyers who are turned down for reasons of conscience care enough to spend the time and money to establish a principle, or instead go to another shop that actually wants to serve them?

As a lawyer who has brought cases where the principle is as important as the benefits to the client, I applaud the buyers here for making the complaint and carrying it to the Supreme Court.  But my point is only that, once the Supreme Court speaks, there is not likely to be many follow-on cases, which is probably to the good for everyone.

Alan Morrison
2

Stanley v. Illinois and Rapist-“Fathers”

I am delighted to return to Concurring Opinions as a guest contributor.  Many thanks to Solangel for her kind invitation.

My posts this week are about the continuing influence of Stanley v. Illinois, 45 years after it was decided.  Stanley’s legacy is positive in terms of encouraging legal recognition of men as fathers to children for whom they provide care and commitment.  The legacy also includes, however, legal recognition of men as fathers in the absence of any involvement, much less care and commitment.  This part of the legacy contributes to the empowerment of men as parents at the expense, in some cases, of the empowerment of women as parents, an ironic result given the gender equality rhetoric of the decision.

One example of the negative legacy is the ongoing controversy about whether a man should enjoy legal fatherhood when his rape of the mother resulted in her pregnancy.  Later, I’ll address that controversy in the context of the recent failure of corrective legislation in Maryland.

In my view, the negative legacy of Stanley reflects unexamined and intersecting stereotypes not only about gender but also about race.  I argue that the Justices may have assumed, without evidence and without express acknowledgement, that the Stanley family was African-American.  If that speculation is correct, the court may have been pursuing what some justices saw as a racial justice agenda along with gender equality claims.  I will address in my next post where the agenda may have led the court.

First, some background.  In 1972, the Supreme Court decided that Illinois was required to recognize Peter Stanley as a parent, even though he was not married to the mother of his children when she died.  Because Stanley, as an unmarried father, was the surviving parent, the state declared the younger Stanley children parent-less and wanted to take them into care.  According to the Court, the failure of the parents to marry was not equivalent to the evidence of neglect or abuse that would be required if the state wanted to take into care the children of a mother or a married father.  The Court concluded that unmarried fathers were entitled to recognition as parents and the same level of process accorded to all mothers and to married fathers before the state could take their children.

In a concurring opinion that I wrote for Feminist Judgments a few years ago, I agree that Peter Stanley was entitled to parental recognition.  I argued that recognition should not arise solely from Stanley’s biological connection to the children, however.  Instead, Stanley’s entitlement should be based in the level of care and commitment he had demonstrated for his children.

My concurrence reflects two strands of feminist thought.  First, many feminists emphasize that caring relationships should count for more in the law.  Second, many feminists agree that law needs to take stories into account to provide context and support reality-based law-making.  In particular, courts do a better job deciding cases when they see people’s relationships to one another as meaningful, particularly relationships of support and care.  Understanding law in the context of people’s lives, their “stories,” is equally essential.  The Stanley Court did little of either.  Instead, the Court came to a broad, abstract conclusion that all people who claim parenthood through a blood relationship, marriage or adoption are the same, regardless of what any of those people have demonstrated in terms of connection with the child.

I am not arguing that a feminist Justice would have dissented; I agree with the outcome of the case.  The record, as I will discuss, demonstrates that Peter Stanley was involved with his children, shared a household with them, and was concerned for their future.  His marital status should not be cause for depriving him of parental status; only a finding of unfitness should justify that deprivation.

Where the Court and I part company is on the question of why.  The Court justifies its rule on the basis that the father has a right to be treated the same as a mother.  In my view, the parental rights of any person, whether father or mother, should turn on whether the person has a relationship with the child that demonstrates a level of commitment to the child’s care.  Where a person with a formal claim to parenthood, whether through birth, marriage or adoption, has never exercised any commitment to the child’s care, the state should be allowed to disregard that person’s claim to parenthood.

The Court’s focus on equality strikes me as not coincidental, but I’m not sure it was solely gender equality that the justices were thinking about.  In my view, at least some of the justices saw Stanley as part of the Court’s racial justice jurisprudence.  In light of this possibility, it also seems important that members of the Court probably thought Peter Stanley and his family were African-American, as I’ll discuss later.

The case is a good example of how claims about racial justice and claims about gender justice may lead to confounding results if not understood and examined contextually.  Empowering Peter Stanley to resist state intervention into his family because of his biological attachment to the children has been interpreted over the years since as empowering all unmarried fathers to be recognized as parents.  Once recognized as a parent, these men have the opportunity to restrict the autonomy of the mothers of their children in parenting decisions such as adoption and custody.  That outcome is inconsistent with preferring involved, committed and caring parents, whether male or female, over others whose connection to a child is solely formal or biological. Ironically, that outcome is hostile, in many cases, to respecting women’s equality.  The risks may be greatest for women of color.

My conclusion is that a relationship-based approach to Stanley’s claims would not have led to a different result for Peter Stanley.  Because a relationship-based approach adds context to the question of who should be recognized as a parent, further, it would help to counter the empowerment of the uninvolved parent that has been the negative legacy of Stanley.

To understand Stanley, it helps to know something about the story of the Stanley family.  The record, however, is scanty.  Here’s what we know from the record and additional research.  Peter and Joan had a long-term relationship and may have believed they were married, although no documentation was ever uncovered.  All accounts show them living together during the last few years before Joan’s death.  For the 17 or so years before that, they lived together continuously or intermittently, depending on whose account is accepted.  Their oldest child was found to be neglected at some point before her mother died.  The two younger children were born in the last few years before Joan’s death, and they were living with Joan and Peter when she died.  We also know that Social Security survivor benefits were paid for the three children, which seems to mean that Joan Stanley earned a salary for some period of time.  Money was tight, at least after Joan’s death.

Here’s some of what the Court’s record does not reveal:  whether Joan or Peter would identify themselves as African-American or European-American, what they did for a living, whether both provided economically to the family, what led to Joan’s early demise, whether Peter cared for her during her illness, and what the oldest child experienced before or after her mother’s death.

In my next post, I’ll discuss why I think members of the Court may have regarded the Stanleys as African-American and what that may have meant to them.

 

4

The Long-Discredited Challenge to the Impartiality of Minority Judges

Recent challenges to the impartiality of a federal judge based on the judge’s racial identity harken back to a period when accusations of this nature occurred with some frequency. This issue of race and judicial neutrality, and its ultimate resolution more than thirty years ago in a little known case, Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, International Union of Operating Engineers, should be understood within historical context.  Read More

0

FAN 110 (First Amendment News) Steve Shapiro to Step Down as ACLU’s Legal Director

Civil liberties without Steve Shapiro is like the Rolling Stones without Jagger. — Kathleen Sullivan

Steve Shapiro

          Steven Shapiro

He is a giant in his world, the world of civil liberties. For some two decades he has been the man at the helm of defending freedom on various fronts ranging from free speech to NSA surveillance and more, much more. His journey began 40 years ago as a staff counsel to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

He is Steven R. Shapiro.

Sometime this fall Shapiro will step down as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He has long been the one ultimately responsible for the ACLU’s entire legal program. Equally significant, Shapiro has been most closely involved with the ACLU’s Supreme Court docket. Ever since 1987, he helped to shape, edit, and occasionally write every ACLU brief to the Supreme Court.

  • Law Clerk (1975-1976 ) Judge J. Edward Lumbard, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
  • J.D. (1975), Harvard Law School, magna cum laude.
  • B.A. (1972), Columbia College

Since 1995 Shapiro has served as an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, where he has taught “Civil Liberties & the Response to Terrorism,” and “Free Speech and the Internet.”

 Shapiro is a member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights First and the Policy Committee of Human Rights Watch, as well as the Advisory Committees of the U.S. Program and Asia Program of Human Rights Watch.

Steven Shapiro, “The Roberts Court and the Future of Civil Liberties,” Houston Law Center, April 20, 2012

Natalie Singer, “Freedom Fighter, A conversation with Steven R. Shapiro ’75

SCOTUSblog on Camera: Steven R. Shapiro (complete six-part series here)

The Measure of the Man: What Others Say

I invited a few of those who know Steve Shapiro and are familiar with his work to offer a few comments. Before proceeding to their full comments, I selected a set of words drawn from them that capture the measure of the man: Here are those seven words:

“thoughtful” 

“principled”

 “unflappable”

 “effective” 

“remarkable” 

“honest”

“extraordinary”

Nadine Strossen: “Steve Shapiro has been a supremely thoughtful, lucid, persuasive advocate of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties, both orally and in writing. Whether he is serving as Counsel of Record on a Supreme Court brief or giving a sound-bite for the national media, he always presents even the most complex, controversial positions clearly, colorfully, and compellingly.”

EVAN E. PARKER/ THE TIMES Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaks Thursday at Valparaiso University's School of Law about the legal aspects of the United States Patriot Act.

   [credit: Evan E. Parker/ The Times]

Robert Corn-Revere: “Through his long career in defending civil liberties, and First Amendment rights in particular, Steve Shapiro demonstrated that protecting individual rights often requires championing the right to express ideas you abhor, but that doing so is necessary to protect basic freedoms. For those of us who had the privilege of working with him, his principled advocacy will be greatly missed.”

Burt Neuborne: “Steve Shapiro set the standard for all once and future ACLU Legal Directors. I know because I didn’t reach his standard. Steve has a precise and uncannily quick analytic mind that breaks complex fact patterns down into controllable issues, together with a keen strategic sense that accurately separates a good academic argument from an argument having a chance in the real world. Couple Steve’s extraordinary legal ability with his careful approach to administration, unflappable good humor, patience, and deeply principled commitment to the ACLU, and you have the key to his enormous success. He leaves office with the respect and affection of hundreds of lawyers whose work he aided, and with the knowledge that he performed one of the nation’s most important legal tasks with brilliance and humanity.”

Erwin Chemerinsky: “Steve Shapiro has done a truly spectacular job as Legal Director of the ACLU. The ACLU legal staff has grown tremendously and likewise benefitted greatly under his leadership and has made a huge difference in so many areas of law. He has been especially effective in directing the ACLU’s presence in the Supreme Court.”

Kathleen Sullivan: “Over his remarkable tenure Steve’s energy, intellect, and suppleness enabled the ACLU to navigate profound changes in the landscape of security, privacy, and freedom. It has always been a joy to work with him.”

Paul M. Smith: “It has been my privilege and pleasure to work with Steve Shapiro on a large number of projects over the years. For a quarter century, he has been on the job at the ACLU displaying a breadth of knowledge and a depth of wisdom that has been extraordinary.”

Arthur Spitzer: “At a recent ACLU Nationwide Staff Conference where Steve Shapiro’s forthcoming retirement was announced, the event planners handed out cardboard fans that said, ‘We’re all fans of Steve.’ The humor may not have been brilliantly original, but I think no one disagreed with the sentiment. Steve is a terrific lawyer, often seeing the deep problems in a case before anyone else and then seeing the way around them. But I think his even greater value to the ACLU has been his ability to be an honest broker among all the competing viewpoints within the ACLU. As far as I’ve been able to perceive (although from afar, at the local affiliate in DC), everyone feels that Steve understands and appreciates his or her concerns, weighs them fairly, and takes them into account, even if not ultimately agreeing. That will be a hard act to follow.”

UnknownOne Measure of His Work: Free Expression Cases

Below is a list of all the free speech cases (not all First Amendment cases) in the Supreme Court where the ACLU filed or signed onto a brief in the last ten terms. The direct cases are marked by an asterisk; all the others are amicus briefs.

2014 Term:

2013 Term:

2012 Term:

2011 Term:

2010 Term:

2009 Term:

2008 Term:

2006 Term:

2005 Term:

____________

Court Denies Review in Sign Case Read More

0

FAN 102.2 (First Amendment News) Latest First Amendment Salon: Cyber Harassment & The First Amendment

Danielle Citron & Laura Handman

     Danielle Citron & Laura Handman

Professor Danielle Citron (author of of Hate Crimes in Cyberspace) was in fine form as she made her case to an audience (in Washington, D.C. & New York) of First Amendment experts — lawyers, journalists, and activists. Laura Handman (a noted media lawyer) responded with talk of her own cyber harassment experience and then proceeded to make a strong case for the need to develop industry guidelines to protect privacy and reputational interests. Ilya Shapiro (a Cato Institute constitutional lawyer) moderated the discussion with lively and thought-provoking questions, including one about the wisdom of the European “right to be forgotten.” All in all, it was an engaging and informative discussion — yet another between a representatives from the legal academy and the practicing bar.

Laura Handman, Ilya Shapiro & Danielle Citron

Laura Handman, Ilya Shapiro & Danielle Citron

It was the initial First Amendment Salon of 2016. The by-invitation discussions take place at the offices of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz in Washington, D.C., and New York and sometimes as well on the Yale Law School campus at the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression.

Selected Excerpts

Professor Citron: Unfortunately, we have “network tools used not as liberty-enhancing mechanisms, but instead as liberty-denying devices.”

Professor Citron: “I am modest in my demands of the law because I am a civil libertarian. My proposals are modest.”

Among others, probing questions and comments were offered by Ashley MessengerLisa Zycherman, Lee Levine, and Victor A. Kovner.

 YouTube video of discussion here.

 Next First Amendment Salon 

May 16, 2016, Chicago: Professor Geoffrey Stone will do a public interview with Judge Richard Posner on the topic of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

Previous First Amendment Salons 

(Note: the early salons were not recorded)

November 2, 2015
Reed v. Gilbert & the Future of First Amendment Law

Discussants: Floyd Abrams & Robert Post
Moderator: Linda Greenhouse

August 26, 2015
The Roberts Court & the First Amendment 

Discussants: Erwin Chemerinsky & Eugene Volokh
Moderator:Kelli Sager

March 30, 2015
Is the First Amendment Being Misused as a Deregulatory Tool?

Discussants: Jack Balkin & Martin Redish
Moderator: Floyd Abrams

March 9, 2015
Hate Speech: From Parisian Cartoons to Cyberspace to Campus Speech Codes

Discussants: Christopher Wolf & Greg Lukianoff
Moderator: Lucy Dalglish

July 9, 2014
Campaign Finance Law & the First Amendment 

Discussants: Erin Murphy & Paul M. Smith
Moderator: David Skover

November 5, 2014
What’s Wrong with the First Amendment? 

Discussants: Steven Shiffrin & Robert Corn-Revere
Moderator: Ashley Messenger

April 28, 2014
Abortion Protestors & the First Amendment

Discussants: Steve Shapiro & Floyd Abrams
Moderator: Nadine Strossen

Salon Co-Chairs

  • Ronald K.L. Collins, University of Washington School of Law
  • Lee Levine, Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz
  • David M. Skover, Seattle University, School of Law

Salon Advisory Board

  • Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California at Irvine, School of Law
  • Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine
  • Robert Post, Yale Law School
  • David Schulz, Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression
  • Paul M. Smith, Jenner & Block
  • Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago, School of Law
  • Nadine Strossen, New York Law School
  • Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law