Tagged: Constitutional Law

0

Kozinski reviews new book — THE JUDGE: 26 MACHIAVELLIAN LESSONS

Judge Alex Kozinski (credit: The Recorder)

So you thought a judge’s job is to be fair and impartial? To renounce personal gain? To have no agenda? According to Ronald K.L. Collins and David M. Skover in their new book, The Judge: 26 Machiavellian Lessons, that’s all malarkey. If you believe it, you’re a chump. And if you’re a judge who believes it, you should quit and make room for someone who will use his power to advantage. “Power,” the authors tell us, is “that ability to make something happen.” Like Niccolo Machiavelli, whose 16th century guide to executive power they channel, the authors explain how the modern judge can exploit the opportunities his position and Fortuna bestow upon him.

So begins Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski’s book review published on Law360. Here is another excerpt:

 “The ethics of a great judge are counter-ethics. They do not bow to law’s old pieties, the ones grounded in the myths of justice impartially applied. … Still, the myth of impartiality lives on and, strangely enough, some judges (the weaker ones) actually take their decisional cues from such pious norms.” The ideal judge “appreciate[s] the value of deception.”

Collins and Skover give example after example where U.S. Supreme Court justices have (in the authors’ view) manipulated the law, lied about history, undermined precedent while pretending to follow it, “cram[med] their opinions with half-truths” and generally pulled the wool over the eyes of their colleagues and the public. The authors speak in glowing terms about justices who achieve their ends through skullduggery and disparage justices who are ineffectual because they’re proud, priggish, wedded to precedent or fooled by their own rhetoric. According to Collins and Skover, “a Justice must be hypocritical and strive to appear objective, judicious, and collegial.” John Marshall, William J. Brennan Jr., William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and (usually) John Roberts make the grade while James Clark McReynolds, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas (except in Griswold), Warren E. Burger, and Roberts in Obergefell don’t. Frankfurter draws particular scorn as “arrogant, combative, spiteful, and manipulative (but not in effective ways).”

 Of course, there is more, much more.  The full text of the review is here: The Judge, 26 Machiavellian Lessons

1

FAN 166 (First Amendment News) Deleted Passages: VA ACLU abandons key portions of its original statement regarding William & Mary controversy

[Earlier this month]  a representative from the American Civil Liberties Union saw her chance to speak about the First Amendment squashed by students chagrined by the actions of her employer.Virginia Gazette, Oct. 6, 2017 The website of the ACLU of Virginia contains a statement by Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, its Executive Director. That statement pertains to the recent controversy at William and Mary. Below are portions of that statement, including passages in red that were apparently contained in the original version but no longer exist in the current one.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga

“The ACLU of Virginia was invited by the College of William & Mary Alma Mater Productions to speak to students on Sept. 27 about their First Amendment rights, and, particularly, their rights at protests and demonstrations. We were pleased to accept the invitation and looked forward to making the presentation and answering questions on a wide range of topics. We were disappointed that we didn’t get the chance to provide the information that the students asked us to present nor to answer the tough questions we expected the student organizers and audience members to ask. . . .”

“The ACLU of Virginia supports unequivocally the freedom of professors, students and administrators to teach, learn, discuss and debate or to express ideas, opinions or feelings in classroom, public or private discourse.”

“We also support the goals espoused by the demonstrators (ending white supremacy, achieving racial justice, elevating those who have been oppressed). It is more than disappointing, however, when the robust debate that should be the hallmark of the culture of inquiry on a college campus is disrupted by those who seek with their own voices or actions simply to silence others who took actions or hold views based on principles with which they disagree.”

 “Disruption that prevents a speaker from speaking, and audience members from hearing the speaker, is not constitutionally protected speech even on a public college campus subject to the First Amendment; it is a classic example of a heckler’s veto, and, appropriately, can be prohibited by a college student code of conduct as it is at William and Mary. As a government entity, a public college like William and Mary has an obligation to protect the freedom of the speaker to speak and not to allow one group of people to shout down or seek to intimidate other speakers or members of the audience who wish to hear the speaker from exercising their own free speech rights. This is true regardless of what individuals or groups are speaking, protesting or counter-protesting.” [This passage survives in a blog post by Sam Harris.] “The ACLU of Virginia has been and will continue to be unwavering in its commitment to campus free speech. We are equally committed to ensuring that all universities take appropriate steps to ensure that the environment on their campuses fosters tolerance and mutual respect among members of the campus community, and an environment in which all students can exercise their right to participate meaningfully in campus life without being subject to discrimination. . . . ” “What happened at William and Mary on Sept. 27 is a part of a larger national trend that is challenging campus leaders across the country to find the right formula for assuring that critical community conversations can take place in a culture of inquiry consistent with a true learning environment. Actions that bully, intimidate or disrupt must not be without consequences in any such formula.” [This passage survives in an Inside Higher Ed story by Jeremy Bauer-Wolf. Though that story contained a link to the passage in red quoted above, the contents of that link have apparently been changed since it no longer contains the lines quoted above.]

Bill Farrar of the VA ACLU

Deleted passages: By all accounts, the passages in red were contained in an earlier version of the ACLU’s statement but do not appear in the current version.

VA ACLU Responds: When asked about the above, Bill Farrar, Director of Strategic Communications, responded: “We revised our statement based on internal feeedback from our colleagues.” He agreed that the deleted passages no longer reflect the Virginia ACLU’s current position. When asked if the National ACLU was consulted, Mr. Farrar said it was not.

Hecklers shout down California attorney general 

This from Adam Steinbaugh over at FIRE: “Last week, Whittier College — my alma mater — hosted California’s Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, in a question-and-answer session organized by Ian Calderon, the Majority Leader of the California State Assembly.”

“They tried to, anyway. The event ended early after pro-Trump hecklers, upset about Becerra’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over DACA, continuously shouted slogans and insults at Becerra and Calderon. A group affiliated with the hecklers later boasted that the speakers were ‘SHOUTED DOWN BY FED-UP CALIFORNIANS” and that the “meeting became so raucous that it ended about a half hour early.'”

“The event, held in Whittier College’s Shannon Center theater, was free and open to members of the community, and featured introductions from both Whittier’s president and student body president. Becerra and Calderon were to have an hour-long question-and-answer session using audience questions randomly selected from a basket. As soon as they began the discussion, however, hecklers decked in ‘Make America Great Again’ hats began a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults.”

“Video captured by an alumnus captures the difficulty of hearing the discussion”:

“Video uploaded by two of the hecklers, Arthur C. Schaper and Harim Uzziel, captures the entirety of the affair, complete with chanted slogans and insults, such as ‘lock him up,’ ‘build that wall,’ ‘obey the law,’ ‘respect our president,’ ‘Americans first,’ and ‘You must respect our president!’ It also captures audience members repeatedly asking the hecklers to stop, and campus security officials approaching the group. Another video posted by “We the People Rising” also captured much of the disruption”:

“Calderon asked the audience to hold applause or booing, remarking: ‘It’s important that we have a productive conversation here.’ Becerra said that he thought the First Amendment to be a “precious thing,” but said he doubted the audience could hear him speak. The event, scheduled for an hour, concluded after about 34 minutes.”

“Schaper, a conservative columnist, is known for leading disruptions targeting Democratic officials, and was recently charged with disrupting a public meeting. For example, he disrupted a congresswoman’s ‘Know Your Rights’ forum, intended to give information to undocumented immigrants. ‘It was offensive,’ Schaper told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. ‘[The congresswoman] took an oath to uphold [the] Constitution, and now she’s sponsoring a town hall that teaches illegal aliens about rights they don’t have.’ . . . “

Coming Soon: The First Amendment in the Regulatory State — Research Roundtable Read More

0

FAN 165.2 (First Amendment News) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten court documents now posted on First Amendment Library

Judge Learned Hand’s order granting the temporary injunction against the postmaster and ordering the magazine transmitted through the mails “without delay” was dated July 26, two days after the decision became known. During that brief period, the company pulled back the copies sent to the Post Office so the edition could be delivered by alternate means. On the same day the order was issued, U.S. Attorney Francis G. Caffey filed an Assignment of Error listing grounds on which he would rely in his appeal from Hand’s decree. In all, there were seven alleged errors, although essentially all of them went directly to the bottom line: Hand was wrong in finding for the magazine under every provision of the Espionage Act raised by government and wrong in granting the injunction.   — Eric Easton, Defending the Masses (Jan. 2018) 

* * * *

‘Tis the year of The Masses. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Judge Learned Hand’s seminal free-speech opinion in Masses Publishing Co. v. PattenAs previously reported here, two major events have been organized to celebrate the occasion.

New York Univeristy School of Law and the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University are hosting an all-day conference in New York on October 20th.

Gilbert E. Roe (lawyer for The Masses)

 Not long thereafter, on November 6th, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in association with The First Amendment Salons, the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School, and the Media Law Committee of the New York State Bar Association, will host a “reargument” of the appeal in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten. Floyd Abrams will appear on behalf of Postmaster Patten and Kathleen M. Sullivan will appear on behalf of Masses Publishing Co. The case will be argued before a panel of three judges:

  • Circuit Judge Reena Raggi,
  • Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval, and
  • Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack

Original court documents posted for first time

In light of all of the above, the folks over at the First Amendment Library (led by Jackie Farmer) have uploaded 18 never before posted documents relating to the appeal in The Masses case. Among other things, this compilation includes the complaint, various affidavits filed in the case, transcript of the record, the order staying Judge Hand’s injunction, and much more.

Adriana Mark, head of research and education for the Second Circuit Library, unearthed these documents for the First Amendment Library. The librarians at the Gallagher Library of the University of Washington School of Law also provided additional research.

As the editor of the Library, I wrote the Introduction to the collection of The Masses documents.

Professor Eric Easton, author of Defending the Masses: A Progressive Lawyer’s Battles for Free Speech University of Wisconsin Press (Jan. 2018), kindly agreed to allow us to post a chapter from his forthcoming book, this to provide additional context for the documents posted.

            Judge Hand’s signature in Masses case

0

FAN 165.1 (First Amendment News) New FIRE Report — Majority of college students self-censor & support disinvitations

This from a just-released report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE):

PHILADELPHIA, Oct. 11, 2017 — A new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education finds a majority of students on college campuses self-censor in class, support disinviting some guest speakers with whom they disagree, and don’t know that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment. The study also finds that Republican and Democratic students have different opinions on campus protests, disinvitations, and hate speech protections.
In the most comprehensive survey on students’ attitudes about free speech to date, FIRE measured student responses to questions about self expression, reactions to expression of other students, guest speakers, and hate speech. Some key findings include:
  • 46 percent of students recognize that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, and 48 percent of students think the First Amendment should not protect hate speech.
  • Most students (56 percent) support disinviting some guest speakers. Democratic students are 19 percentage points more likely than their Republican peers to agree that there are times a speaker should be disinvited.
  • 58 percent of college students think it’s important to be part of a campus community where they are not exposed to intolerant or offensive ideas.
  • Very few students report that they would participate in actions that would prevent a guest speaker event from taking place (2 percent). Even fewer said they would use violence to disrupt an event (1 percent).
  • In open-ended questions, almost half of students (45 percent) identify speech with a racist component as hate speech, and 13 percent of students associate hate speech with violence.
  • In class, 30 percent of students have self-censored because they thought their words would be offensive to others. A majority of students (54 percent) report self-censoring in the classroom at some point since the beginning of college.

FIRE’s survey also found ideological differences in how students feel about free expression, both inside and outside the classroom. Very liberal students are 14 percentage points more likely than their very conservative peers to feel comfortable expressing their opinions in the classroom. Additionally, 60 percent of Republican students think they should not have to walk past a protest on campus, while only 28 percent of Democratic students think the same.

Robert Shibley

“There is clearly a partisan divide in how students perceive free speech on college campuses,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “This further solidifies the importance of FIRE’s mission. Free expression is too important to become a partisan issue in higher education.”

Additionally, FIRE’s survey found that a majority of students want their schools to invite a variety of guest speakers to campus (93 percent), and 64 percent report changing an attitude or opinion after listening to a guest speaker.

FIRE contracted with YouGov (California), a nonpartisan polling and research firm, to survey 1,250 American undergraduate students between May 25 and June 8. YouGov calculated weights for each response based on the respondent’s gender, race, and age. A copy of the full report, an FAQ, and the toplines and tabulations from YouGov can be accessed here.

The survey project was made possible by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation to conduct polling on campus attitudes, engage in legal and social science research, and mobilize a wider audience on and off campus in the fight for student and faculty rights.

ContactWilliam Rickards, Communications Coordinator, FIRE
215-717-3473; media@thefire.org
1

FAN 165 (First Amendment News) Major New First Amendment News, Analysis & History Website Launched

Prof. Stephen Solomon (credit: Sarah Solomon)

If you are interested in the First Amendment, be prepared to bookmark an invaluable new site: First Amendment Watch. This news, anlysis and history website is the brainchild of Stephen D. Solomon, New York University’s Marjorie Deane Professor at NYU’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute, where he teaches First Amendment law.

Recall: Professor Solomon is the author of, among other works, Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech (2016) (First Amendment Salon video here and news story re his speech at History Book Festival event here.)

Managing Editor: Tatiana Serafin has covered issues of press freedom for various publications, including her latest “I, Journalist” for The Seventh Wave. She was a staff writer at Forbes and then co-editor of the magazine’s billionaire’s list, initiating coverage of billionaires in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. She continues as a Forbes Contributor and is an Adjunct Professor at Marymount Manhattan College.

The mission of the site is to document threats to the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition. First Amendment Watch will highlight threats to the freedom of expression as they arise and provide continuing updates as news develops. The most important element is the deep dives into legal and historical background that provides the perspective that helps readers gain a full understanding of today’s First Amendment conflicts.

Social media also play an important role in getting news message out to the public. (See FAW’s Facebook and Twitter links.) “We hope to have a strong social media presence,” said Solomon. “We want to be engaged with the community and create a site for people to visit and learn about important First Amendment news issues.”

→ The startup phase of First Amendment Watch is entirely funded by New York University as a nonpartisan project in the public interest.

Easy to Navigate Topical Tabs 

The site has seven tabs on its information bar:

  1. News Gathering
  2. Speech
  3. Libel
  4. Threats
  5. Censorship
  6. Assembly
  7. Privacy

Managing editor Tatiana Serafin

Each tab contains numerous links to relevant news, updates, analysis, opinion and historical materials. See, for example:

Profiles — news, analysis & historical backdrop — of Contemporary Controversies 

→ Considerable attention is given to some of the most pressing free speech issues of the day, as in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The entry for that case is titled  Discrimination or Free Speech? What’s At Stake in the Wedding Cake Conflict.

→ Another such entry is The Supreme Court Considers First Amendment Arguments in Gerrymandering Case, the reference being to the oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford. These entries contain links to: audio and video clips, news stories and opinion posts,  and lower court opinions and appellate briefs, among other things.

Make the Connection: Linking Today’s Controversies to Those of the Past

Symbolic Speech in Early America: Liberty Tree in colonial Boston

From Liberty Tree to Taking a Knee: America’s Founding Era Sheds Light on the NFL Controversy

“Symbolic speech as a form of protest, like taking a knee at a football game while others stand for the National Anthem, enjoys a long history in America. It’s been a powerful form of political expression going back to the protests in the colonies in the 1760s against British oppression. Various forms of symbolic expression—liberty trees, liberty poles, effigies of hated politicians, even the use of the number 45—brought multitudes into the political sphere and was critical in building opposition to British rule. Much of this symbolic expression was controversial and even offensive but a powerful form of protest then and now.” – By Stephen Solomon

Mapping Free Speech Controversies

There is also a Mapping First Amendment Conflicts link that pinpoints timely free speech controversies accordingly to geographical areas.  From small to big cities, from social media to the White House, First Amendment conflicts arise nearly every day. They can involve libel suits against a big media organization, an attempt by state legislators to restrict demonstrations, public officials blocking Twitter followers they don’t like, and much more. The endless challenges to freedom of expression raise vital questions of constitutional law and the place of free speech in a democratic society. All one has to do is click on the map icons to get brief descriptions of controversies large and small as well as links to more information.

Thus, if you click on the Washington State pointer, this pops up:

Assembly – Olympia, WA – 10/11/16 — description

A Republican State Senator introduced a measure aimed at criminalizing what he calls “economic terrorism.” It “would make protesting a class C felony should it cause any sort of “economic disruption” or “jeopardize human life and property.””  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/306580-washington- 

Video Links 

There are some interesting video links on the site as well.  For example:

Future Plans 

Plans for the future involve invited comment from experts as well as original videos and podcasts.

And yes, for those of you who wish to support this website, there is a tab you can click on to donate to it. Though NYU provided startup funding,  the site can continue only with outside funding.

*  * * Other First Amendment Websites * * * 

History of Film Censorship Timeline

Prof. Laura Wittern-Keller

 

Over at FIRE’s First Amendment Library, they have just posted an impressive History of Film Censorship Timeline.

The timeline was created by Professor Laura Wittern-Keller, author of Freedom of the Screen: Legal Challenges to State Film Censorship, 1915-1981 (2008) and The Miracle Case: Film Censorship and the Supreme Court (2008).

 

 

Scholarly Articles: One New, One Forthcoming  Read More

0

FAN 164 (First Amendment News) 1917 Masses Case to be Reargued in Second Circuit — Floyd Abrams & Kathleen Sullivan to Argue Case

On November 6th the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in association with The First Amendment Salons, the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School, and the Media Law Committee of the New York State Bar Association, will host a “reargument” of the appeal in Masses Publishing Co. v. Pattenthis on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the case. The case will be argued before a panel of three judges:

  • Circuit Judge Reena Raggi,
  • Circuit Judge Pierre N. Leval, and
  • Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack

Second Circuit Chief Judge Robert Katzmann will introduce the event. Noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams will appear on behalf of Postmaster Patten (yes, he will represent the government) and Kathleen M. Sullivan (former Stanford Law dean and seasoned appellate litigator) will appear on behalf of Masses Publishing Co.

* * * *

→ Related Event: A Decision for the Ages: A Symposium Marking the Centenary of Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten

Date & Locale: Friday, October 20, 2017 – New York University School of Law

Historical and Cultural Background – 9:00-10:30

  1. The Artistic and Cultural Scene in 1917 as reflected in The Masses magazine: Amy Adler (NYU)
  2. The Political Situation and The Espionage Act of 1917: Geoffrey Stone (Chicago)
  3. The State of Free Speech Doctrine in 1917: David Rabban (Texas)

Moderator: Michael McConnell (Stanford)

The Masses case: Dramatis Personae and Decision – 10:45-12:15

  1. Learned Hand’s Jurisprudence: Ed Purcell (New York Law School)
  2. The Role of Gilbert Roe, the Masses attorney: Eric Easton (Baltimore)
  3. The Decision: Vincent Blasi (Columbia)

Moderator: Judge Robert Sack (Second Circuit)

Lunch Break – 12:30-1:30

Aftermath of the Masses decision1:45-3:15

  1. Hand’s influence on Holmes and the Abrams dissent: Thomas Healy (Seton Hall)
  2. Hand’s influence on free speech theory and justifications: Mark Graber (Maryland)
  3. Hand’s subsequent free speech decisions: Paul Bender (ASU) (via videoconference)

Moderator: Jeremy Kessler (Columbia)

The Influence of Masses on Modern First Amendment Doctrine — 3:30-5:00

A discussion about the extent to which the Masses test has been incorporated into Brandenburg and other modern cases: Burt Neuborne (NYU); James Weinstein (ASU); Martha Field (Harvard)

Moderator: Robert LoBue (Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler)

Reception – 5:15-6:15 p.m.

More Controversy: The ACLU’s Defense of Free Speech  Read More

0

FAN 162 (First Amendment News) Online First Amendment Encyclopedia Launched

Given our increasingly polarized society, it’s important to remember what should unite us: respect for freedom of speech, press, religion, and the right to assemble and petition. — Ken Paulson (Sept. 14, 2017)

Dean Ken Paulson (credit: Bruce Guthrie)

It’s online now: The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Among other things, it is a impressive collection of more than 1,500 articles on First Amendment topics, court cases, and history. The online encyclopedia was culled and updated from the two-volume Encyclopedia of The First Amendment edited by John R. Vile, David L. Hudson, Jr. & David Schultz.

Two of the three original editors of the volumes — John Vile and David Hudson — spent the past several months reviewing and updating entries and adding new ones.

This online treasure trove of information was originally published by Congressional Quarterly in 2009 and listed for $355.00. The online encyclopedia (now free of charge) comprehensively examines the political, historical, and cultural significance and development of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government.

 The rights to the Encyclopedia were purchased by Dean Ken Paulson of Middle Tennessee State University.

John Seigenthaler (1927-2014)

“We’ve found the now out-of-print two-volume edition,” said Paulson, “to be an extraordinary resource, so we purchased it, digitized it and updated the content.  It’s a remarkable resource for those interested in First Amendment freedoms and it’s written in a style that makes it useful to both students and scholars.”

“The encyclopedia,” he added, “is part of an ongoing expansion of the Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence in First Amendment Studies at Middle Tennessee State Univeristy. The chair honors John Seigenthaler and his lifelong commitment to the First Amendment. Expanded programing and the revitalization of the website are among the steps we’re taking to address John’s lifelong goal of preserving and protecting the First Amendment through education and information.”

Deborah Fisher at press conference

“This is a living, breathing project that will continue to grow in a way that promotes awareness and understanding of the First Amendment and its role in American history,” said Deborah Fisher, director of the Seigenthaler Chair of Excellence.

 Video of press conference here

 Disclosure: Many years ago Ken Paulson hired me to work at the First Amendment Center.

→ Related Resource: FIRE’s First Amendment Online Library

On Compelled Artistic Expression: Judge Breyer circa 1988

Re: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

If you want to get a sense of First Amendment law and compelled artistic expression, a good case to consult is Redgrave v. Boston Symphony Orchestra, 855 F.2d 888 (1st Cir. en banc, 1988).

First Circuit Judge Stephen Breyer (C-SPAN)

The case involved actress Vanessa Redgrave who “brought suit against the Boston Symphony Orchestra (BSO) for cancelling a contract for Redgrave’s appearance as narrator in a performance of Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex. The cancellation occurred in the wake of protests over Redgrave’s participation because of her support of the Palestine Liberation Organization. She sought recovery both for breach of contract and for violation of her civil rights under [a Massachusetts civil rights law.”

Writing for the Court sitting en banc Judge Frank Coffin declared:

  • “Protection for free expression in the arts should be particularly strong when asserted against a state effort to compel expression.”
  • Judge Coffin then added: “We see no reason why less protection should be provided where the artist refuses to perform; indeed, silence tradi- tionally has been more sacrosanct than affirmative expression.”
  • The court was “unable to find any case, involving the arts or otherwise, in which a state has been allowed to compel expression,” and observed that doing so would be “completely unprecedented.”
  • “All three groups indicated, in tones ranging from strong suggestion to outright certainty, a view that the BSO should not be held liable under the [state civil rights law] for exercising its free speech right not to perform.”

Judge Stephen Breyer was one of the judges who joined Judge Coffin’s opinion.

See Amicus brief of First Amendent Lawyers Association in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

ACLU Brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Rejects Free Speech Claim Read More

0

FAN 160.1 (First Amendment News) Ballard Spahr and Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz to Merge

Press ReleaseAm Law 100 firm Ballard Spahr and Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz (LSKS)—the preeminent First Amendment and media law boutique in the United States—announced today that they have agreed to merge effective October 1, 2017. The powerhouse combination, which will retain the name Ballard Spahr, brings together two nationally renowned media law practices and creates a team that represents the biggest and most prominent names in the industry.

All 25 of LSKS’s lawyers, including all four of its name partners—Lee Levine, Michael D. Sullivan, Elizabeth C. Koch, and David A. Schulz—will join Ballard Spahr in its Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Denver offices. LSKS is well known for its deep bench of top-tier First Amendment attorneys. Its lawyers, including Mr. Levine—who has been described in Chambers USA as “the greatest First Amendment attorney in the United States”—have argued landmark cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and in state and federal courts across the country.

Mark S. Stewart (Ballard Spahr) 

“We have made one outstanding addition after another to our Media and Entertainment Law Group—including Practice Leaders David Bodney and Chuck Tobin, who are recognized as among the very best in the business,” said Ballard Spahr Chair Mark Stewart. “With the arrival of LSKS, we will have one of the largest practices of its kind in the country. The LSKS lawyers are terrific people whose dedication to this critically important work mirrors ours. It is an exciting development for both firms.”

Media attorneys at Ballard Spahr and LSKS represent and counsel clients across platforms and industry sectors—news, entertainment, sports, publishing, advertising, and advocacy. They defend media clients in defamation, privacy, and First Amendment litigation; prosecute actions to secure open government and public access; defend journalists against civil, criminal, and grand jury subpoenas; advise reporters in their newsgathering; provide prepublication and prebroadcast counseling to a wide array of media; and help clients protect their intellectual property rights.

Jay Ward Brown (LSKS)

LSKS has been at the vanguard in representing the media in many of its most significant and consequential First Amendment cases in recent years. Last month, the firm achieved dismissal in federal court of a defamation suit brought against The New York Times by former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. LSKS also helped the Associated Press obtain the release of sealed documents in the Bill Cosby sexual assault cases; successfully defended NBCUniversal in a defamation suit brought by George Zimmerman, the man acquitted in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin; and succeeded in reversing a jury verdict against the estate of famed Navy SEAL Chris Kyle in a case brought by Jesse Ventura following the publication of Kyle’s best-selling book American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.

“We are more committed than ever to providing our clients with the strongest, most comprehensive representation possible,” said LSKS Managing Partner Jay Ward Brown. “We saw that same commitment in Ballard Spahr, and we knew that Ballard—with its practice depth and national platform —would support and strengthen our work. We share many of the same clients, and those clients have the highest regard for Ballard Spahr. Together, this team is second to none.”

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡  

 As with Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, Ballard Spahr will continue to host and support The First Amendment Salon.

‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 

Ballard Spahr welcomes the following attorneys from LSKS:

  • Lee Levine
  • Michael D. Sullivan
  • Elizabeth C. Koch
  • David A. Schulz
  • Thomas B. Kelley
  • Celeste Phillips
  • Robert Penchina
  • Seth D. Berlin
  • Jay Ward Brown
  • Steven D. Zansberg
  • Michael Berry
  • Chad R. Bowman
  • Cameron Stracher
  • Ashley I. Kissinger
  • Alia L. Smith
  • Paul J. Safier
  • Elizabeth Seidlin Bernstein
  • Mara J. Gassmann
  • Dana R. Green
  • Matthew E. Kelley
  • Jeremy A. Kutner
  • Max Mishkin
  • Thomas B. Sullivan
  • Al-Amyn Sumar
  • Alexander I. Ziccardi

The LSKS merger is the second to be announced by Ballard Spahr. Last week, Ballard Spahr announced that it will join with Lindquist & Vennum—a Minneapolis-based law firm known as a leader in middle-market M&A and private equity dealmaking—effective January 1, 2018. The combination will extend Ballard Spahr’s national footprint into the Midwest, giving the firm offices in Minneapolis and Sioux Falls, SD, and an expanded presence in Denver. When the mergers are completed, Ballard Spahr will have more than 675 lawyers in 15 offices across the country.

About Ballard SpahrBallard Spahr LLP, an Am Law 100 law firm with more than 500 lawyers in 13 offices in the United States, provides a range of services in litigation, business and finance, real estate, intellectual property, and public finance. Our clients include Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, life sciences and technology companies, health systems, investors and developers, government agencies, media companies, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations. The firm combines a national scope of practice with strong regional market knowledge. For more information, please visit www.ballardspahr.com.

About LSKSLevine Sullivan Koch & Schulz is a national law firm dedicated to serving the legal needs of creators and providers of virtually every type of content in virtually every kind of media, both traditional and new. Its practice focuses exclusively on the field of media law, specializing in First Amendment, entertainment, and intellectual property law. With offices in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, and Denver, the firm provides counsel nationwide on defamation and privacy, access and freedom of information, content regulation, subpoena matters, and intellectual property rights.


 

5

FAN 160 (First Amendment News) Latest First Amendment Salon: A Dialogue Between Geof Stone & Vince Blasi re “Sex & the Constitution”

Note: Summer schedule until September 6th when I will return to a regular Wednesday weekly schedule. 

Professors Geof Stone & Vince Blasi

This book was in some ways an accident. One day in occurred to me [that] the Supreme Court has made, what I regard, all this progress in these various areas relating to sexual freedom, over the last 60 years. (It’s was actually 50 years ago when I had that thought. . . .) I said, ‘what would the framers have thought of this?’ Not that I’m an originalist, because I’m not. I was just sort of curious. Because I really didn’t have any idea of wat they would have thought of the world we’re living in today.Geoffrey Stone 

Last month, the First Amendment Salon hosted its 14th salon, which consisted of a conversation betwwen Professors Vince Blasi and Geoffrey Stone. The dialogue, which was introduced by Lee Levine, focused on Stone’s latest book, Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America’s Origins to the Twenty-First Century (Liveright, 2017).

A video of this rich and engaging dialogue can be found here, thanks to Nico Perino and the folks at FIRE.

The next salon will occur in New York on November 14th at 6:00 pm. It will consist of a Second Circuit reargument of the the Masses case (2nd Cir., 1917). Details forthcoming in early fall. This Salon will follow the all day conference at New York Universtiy celebrating the 100th anniversary of Judge Learned Hand’s district court opinion in that case.

“Ninth Circuit poised to resolve major free speech issue in secret proceeding”

Paul Alan Levy writing in the Consumer Law & Policy Blog notes that “[t]he United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued an order signed only by the Clerk declaring that a significant free speech issue bearing on the rights of anonymous Internet users will be decided in a totally secret proceeding, involving sealed briefs, a sealed record, and without any help from would-be amici (including Public Citizen) seeking to explain the dangers posed by the proceeding.”

Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen

“The case arises from a subpoena served by the United States on the employer-rating site Glassdoor, originally demanding identifying information about the owners of more than one hundred pseudonymous accounts that had, it appears, been used to post reviews of a particular employer whose contracting practices were subject to a federal criminal investigation. Over the past few years, Glassdoor has been one of the most aggressive companies demanding strong justification for civil subpoenas seeking to identify its users (considering how expensive legal services are, this company commitment earns it much credit in my book). Extending this approach to the criminal law context, Glassdoor refused to produce the information demanded by the grand jury subpoena, citing the First Amendment right of its users to speak anonymously.”

“In an effort to compromise, the government limited its production demand to eight specified reviewers. Glassdoor responded to that offer by proposing that it notify the users of the subpoena and provide identifying information for such of its users who were willing to be identified to the prosecutors. After the government rejected this offer, Glassdoor moved to quash the subpoena, invoking its users’ First Amendment right to speak anonymously which, Glassdoor contended, created a privilege against production of the information. At the same time, it notified its users of the subpoena, thus meeting one of the conditions of the Dendrite line of cases that it cited in its motion. Those cases rely on the First Amendment right to speak anonymously as a basis for posing procedural and substantive obstacles to civil subpoenas seeking to identify online speakers so that they can be served with process and sued for wrongful speech. Eventually, Glassdoor also invoked Bursey v. United States, a decision in which the Ninth Circuit quashed in part a grand jury subpoena directed at the process of publishing the newspaper of the Black Panther Party.”

“The entire subpoena litigation was conducted under seal, but we know some of the details because, having taken a contempt citation to secure its ability to appeal, Glassdoor next obtained the government’s stipulation for the partial unsealing of the briefs exchanges by the two sides on Glassdoor’s motion to quash. Glassdoor had appealed, and raised the possibility that parties beside itself might wish to provide the Court of Appeals with the benefit of their views of the applicable law. The trial judge granted that request; as a result the briefs supporting and opposing the Glassdoor motion to quash, as well as reply briefs both from Glassdoor and from the government, are available in the public record, as is the judge’s ruling on the motion. . . .”

[ht: Volokh Conspiracy]

Professor Ruthann Robson

Robson on New First Amendment Rulings

  • Ruthann Robson, Third Circuit: First Amendment Right to Record PoliceConstitutional Law Prof Blog, July 7, 2017 (In its opinion in Fields v. City of Philadelphia, the Third Circuit concluded that “Simply put, the First Amendment protects the act of photographing, filming, or otherwise recording police officers conducting their official duties in public.’  As the panel majority opinion by Judge Thomas Ambro noted, ‘Every Circuit Court of Appeals to address this issue (First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh) has held that there is a First Amendment right to record police activity in public’; the Third Circuit joined ‘this growing consensus.'”)

           → Video of oral arguments in Third Circuit 

See also: Rebecca Tushnet, Court gags on Utah’s ag-gag law (July 13, 2017)

→ Related:  Press Release: Animal Legal Defense Fund Puts Wisconsin Hunting Statute in the Cross Hairs (“Today the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in federal court aiming to strike down a recently amended Wisconsin statute which bans photographing, videotaping, approaching or even “maintaining a visual or physical proximity” to a hunter. The organization argues the law unconstitutionally restricts free speech and violates the First Amendment.”)

[ht: David Keating]

National Review headline: “Republicans, Don’t Sacrifice Free Speech to Punish the Media”

Here is how Elliot Kaufman begins the above titled editorial: “You can’t call yourself a supporter of the First Amendment if you would deny the rights it guarantees to those with whom you disagree.”

Elliot Kaufman

“By a margin of over two to one, Republicans support using the courts to shut down news media outlets for “biased or inaccurate” stories, according to a recent poll from The Economist and YouGov. When asked if cracking down on the press in this manner would violate the First Amendment, a narrow majority of Republicans agreed that it does, seeming to create a contradiction. However, a further question gave them a chance to clear the air and reaffirm the primacy of principle over political expediency: “Which is more important to you?” it asked, ‘(A) Protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories; (B) Punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press; (C) Not sure.'”

“Shockingly, a full 47 percent of Republicans support “punishing biased or inaccurate news media, even if that means limiting the freedom of the press,” versus just 34 percent who support “protecting freedom of the press, even if that means media outlets sometimes publish biased or inaccurate stories.” By contrast, 59 percent of Democrats said they prioritize protecting the freedom of the press, dwarfing the 19 percent who see it the other way. On this issue, the Democrats are right. Freedom of the press is included in the Bill of Rights for two reasons: It matters, and there is perpetually an illiberal temptation to extinguish it. Republican politicians will always call CNN and the New York Times ‘biased’ and ‘inaccurate.’ . . . .”

Looking Back: 1972 | Pressmen Balk at an Impeachment Ad in The Times

Writing in the New York Times recently, David Dunlap began his story with this: “‘A Resolution to Impeach Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States,’ said the headline across a two-page political advertisement in The New York Times. It had nothing to do with Watergate. In fact, the break-in at the Democratic National Committee office in the Watergate complex — the “third-rate burglary” that ultimately doomed President Nixon — hadn’t even occurred on May 31, 1972, when the ad ran. . . .”

“Down in The Times’s basement pressroom at 229 West 43rd Street, the men who printed the newspaper were having none of it. . . . The pressmen demanded that The Times remove the ad. The management refused. Then they demanded space in the paper to express their opposition. The management refused again. By this time, the start of the press run had been delayed almost 15 minutes — a critical interval given delivery timetables that required Times trucks get to newsstands, depots, railroad stations and airports on a pinpoint schedule.”

Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, the publisher, was infuriated. . . .”

Ira Glasser responds in letter-to-editor:

“I was the head of the New York Civil Liberties Union when we represented the plaintiffs in the 1972 impeachment ad case you describe. It was the first time the government tried to use a campaign finance law to suppress criticism of an elected official.”
“The Times vigorously supported the free speech right of the citizens we represented, and we won.”

“Later, the ACLU (a corporation) itself was effectively barred by campaig

Ira Glasser

n finance law from running an ad in the Times criticizing President Nixon for his views on school integration. We sued, and again the Times vigorously supported our free speech right against restrictions in campaign finance law, and our ad was published.”

“In 2010, an organization called Citizens United, also a corporation like the ACLU, tried to broadcast a film it had made critical of Hillary Clinton, as we had years before been critical of Richard Nixon. Again, the government tried to use the campaign finance law to block the film from being shown. The Supreme Court struck that attempt down.”
“But this time the Times radically changed its position, and denounced the Court’s decision, opposing publication of the Citizens United film criticizing Clinton, a radical departure from its support of the ACLU’s ad criticizing Nixon.”
“Why the change? What happened at the Times that led it to abandon the First Amendment, upon which its own freedom of the press depends?”
Ira Glasser

The writer was executive director of the NYCLU 1970-78 and of the ACLU 1978-2001.

3 Notable Forthcoming Scholarly Articles 

Al-Amyn Sumar, Are All Prior Restraints Equal? The Constitutionality of Gag Orders Issued under the Stored Communications Act, Yale Journal of Law & Technology (Forthcoming 2017)

Al-Amyn Sumar of Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz

Abstract: The First Amendment abhors no restriction on speech more than a prior restraint. A prior restraint on expression — a restriction that “forbid[s] certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur” — is “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on FirstAmendment rights,” and bears a “heavy presumption” of unconstitutionality. Put simply, the prohibition on prior restraints under black letter First Amendment law is “near-absolute.”

The focus of this Essay is the source of an unexpected but important challenge to classic prior restraint doctrine: government surveillance in the digital era. Ongoing litigation about the constitutionality of the Stored Communications Act (SCA) highlights that challenge. The SCA authorizes the government both to obtain a person’s stored Internet communications from a service provider, and to seek a gag order preventing the provider from even notifying a person of that fact. In April 2016, Microsoft brought a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in federal court, alleging that gag orders issued under the SCA constitute unconstitutional prior restraints and content-based restrictions on speech. In a February 2017 decision, the court denied the government’s motion to dismiss Microsoft’s First Amendment claims and allowed the suit to proceed.

The court was right to do so, and it should ultimately invalidate the SCA’s gag-order provisions. SCA gag orders are prior restraints on speech, and the statute cannot withstand the heavy scrutiny that applies to them. However, recent decisions addressing the constitutionality of similar gag orders involving National Security Letters suggest that courts are sympathetic to the view that such orders are not “typical” prior restraints, and therefore attract a lesser standard of scrutiny. That premise appears dubious. But even granting it, the SCA poses serious constitutional problems, and it should be either invalidated and then amended or interpreted to avoid those issues. If courts are to carve out an exception allowing for prior restraints in the era of digital surveillance, that exception should be exceedingly narrow.

Martin H. Redish & Matthew Fisher, Terrorizing Advocacy and the First Amendment: Free Expression and the Fallacy of Mutual Exclusivity, Fordham Law Review (Forthcoming 2017)

Professor Martin Redish

Abstract: Recent concern about modern terrorists’ attempts to induce ideologically-driven violence has given rise to a First Amendment dilemma. Some conclude that to preserve our free speech tradition, unlawful advocacy must be protected absent the imminent danger of harm. Others argue that traditional First Amendmentprotection must be suspended in the specific context of terrorist speech to prevent potentially violent catastrophes. We seek to resolve this dilemma by recognizing a new hybrid category called “terrorizing advocacy.”

This is a type of traditionally protected public unlawful advocacy that simultaneously exhibits the unprotected pathologies of true threats. When a speaker urges a willing listener to commit violence against an intended victim who is an intended recipient of the speaker’s advocacy, the speech constitutes a blend of protected persuasive and unprotected coercive speech. We propose a new multi-factor test designed to balance these competing elements in a manner that protects unlawful advocacy when appropriate but suppresses inherently coercive threats where they dominate the expression. In this manner we have recognized an inherent duality of two types of criminal speech when to date courts and scholars have implicitly assumed the mutual exclusivity of unlawful advocacy and true threats doctrine.

Robert Yablon, Campaign Finance Reform Without Law, Iowa Law Review (forthcoming 2017)

Professor Robert Yablon

Abstract: Conventionally understood, campaign finance reform is a matter of public regulation. Reformers believe that, without adequate government intervention, wealthy individuals and entities are destined to exert outsized influence over elections and governance. Propelled by that belief, they have spent decades advocating regulatory fixes, with relatively little to show for it. Many existing regulations are watered down and easy to circumvent. Efforts to bolster them have repeatedly hit doctrinal and political roadblocks — obstacles that are more formidable today than ever before.

This Article seeks to shift campaign finance discourse toward private ordering. Because scholars and reformers have long focused on public regulation, they have largely overlooked possible private correctives. The Article maps that uncharted terrain, revealing an array of extra-legal mechanisms that at least somewhat constrain money’s electoral clout. This survey suggests that numerous private actors have incentives and capacities to implement additional extra-legal reform. The Article then sketches several potential private interventions, and it assesses the interplay between public regulation and private reform. Private reform is no silver bullet, but to ignore private ordering even as public regulation flounders makes little sense. Especially given the significant constraints on public intervention, it is vital for campaign finance scholars and reformers to look beyond the law.

New & Forthcoming Books

Abstract: From the University of California, Berkeley, to Middlebury College, institutions of higher learning increasingly find themselves on the front lines of cultural and political battles over free speech. Repeatedly, students, faculty, administrators, and politically polarizing invited guests square off against one another, assuming contrary positions on the limits of thought and expression, respect for differences, the boundaries of toleration, and protection from harm.

In Free Speech on Campus, political philosopher Sigal Ben-Porath examines the current state of the arguments, using real-world examples to explore the contexts in which conflicts erupt, as well as to assess the place of identity politics and concern with safety and dignity within them. She offers a useful framework for thinking about free-speech controversies both inside and outside the college classroom, shifting the focus away from disputes about legality and harm and toward democracy and inclusion. Ben-Porath provides readers with strategies to de-escalate tensions and negotiate highly charged debates surrounding trigger warnings, safe spaces, and speech that verges on hate. Everyone with a stake in campus controversies—professors, students, administrators, and informed members of the wider public—will find something valuable in Ben-Porath’s illuminating discussion of these crucially important issues.

Abstract: Grove Press and its house journal, The Evergreen Review, revolutionized the publishing industry and radicalized the reading habits of the “paperback generation.” In telling this story, Rebel Publisher offers a new window onto the long 1960s, from 1951, when Barney Rosset purchased the fledgling press for $3,000, to 1970, when the multimedia corporation into which he had built the company was crippled by a strike and feminist takeover. Grove Press was not only one of the entities responsible for ending censorship of the printed word in the United States but also for bringing avant-garde literature, especially drama, into the cultural mainstream. Much of this happened thanks to Rosset, whose charismatic leadership was crucial to Grove’s success. With chapters covering world literature and the Latin American boom; experimental drama such as the Theater of the Absurd, the Living Theater, and the political epics of Bertolt Brecht; pornography and obscenity, including the landmark publication of the complete work of the Marquis de Sade; revolutionary writing, featuring Rosset’s daring pursuit of the Bolivian journals of Che Guevara; and underground film, including the innovative development of the pocket filmscript, Loren Glass covers the full spectrum of Grove’s remarkable achievement as a communications center for the counterculture.

Abstract:  The overarching objective of Understanding the First Amendment is to facilitate student learning efficiency and academic success. Toward this end, it focuses upon core subject matter that is likely to be tested in a law school examination or on the bar examination. The book also provides tools that enable students to organize the course and their understanding in a way that enhances retention. The beginning of each chapter highlights key points of coverage. The end of each chapter indicates essential points to remember. The book strikes a balance between comprehensiveness and selectivity, thus providing students with assurance that they know enough, know it well, but are not overwhelmed by details that are unduly esoteric or irrelevant to their performance needs.

Abstract: This title was first published in 2000:  While there are many philosophical studies of free speech, treating censorship historically, politically, or by the medium restricted (films, press etc.), little has been written on censorship and free speech dealing with issues philosophically and approaching them from the perspective of restrictions. This book treats censorship and free speech as a problem of ideas, examining the issues as an aspect of our wider social and political lives and critically examining mainstream arguments against censorship. This unique approach takes issue with the concept of censorship as something aberrant, to examine where the limits of free speech lie in ensuring individual development and collective harmony. Examining the possibility of accepting censorship positively to serve legitimate purposes, it will be a thought-provoking challenge to prescriptive arguments for free speech.

Litigation Journal: “Chutzpah” Issue 

The forthcoming summer issue of Litigation Journal (vol. 43 #4) is devoted to the topic of “Chutzpah” and the law.  Included in the issue are the following two articles:

  • Robert Corn-Revere “’I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It.’ But How? (A look at First Amendment cases and how to plead them successfully.)
  • Joel Gora, Money, Speech, and Chutzpah (The ins and outs of the decades-long battle over campaign finance limitations and free speech.)
1

FAN 158 (First Amendment News) 2016-2017 Term Ends: Three First Amendment Victories & cert. grant in religious cake-baker case

Today, after consideration in many conferences, the Court agreed to hear Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionThe issue in the case is whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. The Coloroado Court of Appeals denied those First Amendment claims.

 Counsel of record for Petitioners: Jeremy D. Tedesco (cert. petition here)

2016-2017 Term: First Amendment Free Expression Opinions  

With the close of this Term, the Roberts Court has rendered opinions in 46 First Amendment free-expression cases. Notably, as indicated below, this Term the Court was unanimous in all three of its First Amendment free speech cases.

  1. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) (8-0, per Roberts, C.J.) (opinion by Alito, J., concurring in the judgment) (striking down N.C. law prohibiting registered sex offenders access to Internet sites that permit minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages)
  2. Matal v. Tam (2017) (8-0, per Alito, J.) (with separate opinions by Kennedy, J., concurring in part & concurring in the judgment, and Thomas, J., concurring in part & concurring in the judgment) (disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause)
  3. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017) (8-0, per Roberts, C.J.) (opinion by Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment, and an opinion by Sotomayor, J., concurring in the judgment) (holding that N.Y. credit card surcharge statute regulates speech within the meaning of the First Amendment; remaded to determine whether law was valid commercial speech regulation under Central Hudson and whether the law can be upheld as a valid disclosure requirement under Zauderer).

Pending Appeals & Petitions & Related Cases

  1. Elonis v. United States
  2. Harris v. Cooper 
  3. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
  4. A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra
  5. Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Becerra

Summary Dispositions

  1. Republican Party of Louisiana, et al. v. FEC (affirmed) (Justices Thomas & Gorsuch would note probable jurisdiction and set the case fororal argument)
  2. Independence Institute v. FEC (affirmed)

Cert. Denied

  1. Garcia v. Bloomberg
  2. Mulligan v. Nichols
  3. Alabama Democratic Conference v. Marshall
  4. Augsburg Confession
  5. Keefe v. Adams
  6. Scott v. Georgia
  7. Bondi v. Dana’s Railroad Supply
  8. Bennie v. Munn
  9. Flytenow v. Federal Aviation Administration
  10. Armstrong v. Thompson
  11. Wolfson v. Concannon
  12. Dart v. Backpage.com
  13. NCAA v. O’Bannon
  14. Mech v. School Board of Palm Beach County
  15. Williams v. Coalition for Secular Government 
  16. Pro-Football v. Blackhorse 

First Amendment Religious Expression Case: Cert. Denied

Melhorn v. Baltimore Washington Conference of United Methodist Church (Whether the ministerial exception of the First Amendment absolutely bars breach of contract and tortious conduct lawsuits in situations of illegal conduct or harm to third parties.)

Free Speech Related Cases: Review denied 

  • Doe v. Backpage.com LLC (Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides that no internet service provider “shall be treated as the publisher or speaker” of internet content that was “provided by another,” precludes a civil lawsuit against a website owner and operator based on its own criminal conduct any time online content created by a third party was part of the chain of causation leading to the plaintiff’s injuries.)

First Amendment Religious Expression Case: Review Denied 

  • Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered (Whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides absolute immunity for defamatory statements made in a religious setting, even if the person defamed is not a member of the religious organization and even if the truth or falsity of the defamatory statement can be adjudicated without considering or interpreting religious doctrine — applicability of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine)

Speech & Debate Clause: Petition Denied

  • Menendez v. United States (Whether a court may consider a legislator’s motive for performing an act when deciding whether the act is protected by the speech or debate clause).

Freedom of Information Act Petition: Cert. Denied  

Roberts Court Era: Justice Kennedy’s Majority or Plurality First Amendment Free-Expreesion Opinions 

Given the talk in the news about Justice Anthony Kennedy’s possible retuirment, I thought it useful to list his free-expression First Amendment opinions published during the era of the Roberts Court:

  1. Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) (vote: 5-4)
  2. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) (vote: 5-4)
  3. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc(2011) (vote: 6-3)
  4. Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (vote: 2011) (8-1)
  5. United States v. Alvarez (2012) (vote: 6-3)
  6. Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) (vote: 8-0)

 Notable Roberts Court Era Separate Opinions:

College fires professor over comments made on TV

This from a story by Josh Delk writing for The Hill: “Essex County College has fired adjunct professor Lisa Durden after she made racially charged comments in an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, according to a new report by the Associated Press.”

Tucker Carlson & Professor Lisa Durden

“The college’s president, Anthony Munroe, announced the decision Friday, two weeks after Durden went on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to discuss an “all-black Memorial Day celebration” hosted by a Black Lives Matter group.”

“When asked by Carlson about the event, Durden interrupted the host, saying “boo hoo hoo. You white people are angry because you couldn’t use your white privilege card to get invited” to the Black Lives Matter event.”

“‘You’re demented, actually,’ Tucker later responded to her defense.”

“Durden went on to call America a ‘racist society.'”

“According to AP, Durden was suspended with pay on June 8, two days after the interview aired, when college officials say they received complaints about her comments. After a Tuesday meeting with college officials, she was fired. . . .”

Video clip here

 Full text of statement from college president here

President Anthony E. Munroe

Excerpt from President Anthony E. Munroe’s statement: “While the adjunct who expressed her personal views in a very public setting was in no way claiming to represent the views and beliefs of the College, and does not represent the College, her employment with us and potential impact on students required our immediate review into what seemed to have become a very contentious and divisive issue. For the purpose of a fair and immediate review, the adjunct was suspended with full pay, for the remainder of the summer I session which equated to six (6) working days, pending the outcome of a fair and thorough review of the matter. The adjunct addressed the College community at an open forum on June 20th. In consideration of the College’s mission, and the impact that this matter has had on the College’s fulfillment of its mission, we cannot maintain an employment relationship with the adjunct. The College affirms its right to select employees who represent the institution appropriately and are aligned with our mission.”

FIRE’s Policy Reform department is hiring

By June 22, 2017

Free speech-minded attorneys and recent law school graduates, pay attention: FIRE is looking to add a new staff member to its Policy Reform department.

FIRE’s Policy Reform team works with college students, faculty members, administrators, and general counsels to improve their institutions’ protections for free speech and academic freedom. We help to revise unconstitutional and restrictive speech codes, enact policy statements codifying the principles underlying the First Amendment, and work in other ways to improve the campus climate for free expression. We’re now looking to add another member to our team!

Applicants can check out the full job posting before submitting their application materials.

The ideal applicant will be passionate about First Amendment law and principles, demonstrate enthusiasm for working with students, faculty members, and administrators, and possess the legal analysis, writing, and research skills that are critical to a successful career in constitutional law and civil liberties.

Chris Finan: New Director of National Coalition Against Censorship

Chris Finan

NCAC Press Release: The National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC), an alliance of 56 national non-profit organizations, announced today that it has hired Christopher M. Finan as its next executive director.  Joan Bertin, the current executive director, is stepping down after leading the organization for 20 years.  NCAC promotes freedom of thought, inquiry and expression and opposes censorship in all its forms.

“We are indeed lucky that a free expression advocate the caliber of Chris Finan has agreed to lead the NCAC to its next chapter,” said Jon Anderson, chair of the NCAC Board of Directors and president and publisher of Simon & Schuster Children’s Publishing. “In this most challenging of times for First Amendment rights, we need someone with the experience and reputation that Chris brings to the table in protecting the rights of all Americans to express themselves as they choose.”

Finan has a long career as a free speech activist.  He is currently director of American Booksellers for Free Expression, part of the American Booksellers Association (ABA).  In 1982, he joined Media Coalition, a trade association that defends the First Amendment rights of booksellers, publishers, librarians and others who produce and distribute First Amendment-protected material.  In 1998, he became president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.  The foundation merged with ABA in 2015.

Finan has worked closely with NCAC as a member of the board of directors and as a board chair.  In 2007, he and Bertin created NCAC’s Kids’ Right to Read Project, which supports parents, students, teachers and librarians who are fighting efforts to ban books in schools and libraries.

“I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead an organization that plays such an important role in protecting free expression.  I am also very fortunate to be succeeding Joan Bertin, who has led NCAC’s vigorous defense of free speech during a time of growing censorship pressure,” Finan said.

As examples of NCAC’s recent advocacy, Finan pointed to statements defending publishers who are pressured to censor books that some critics consider offensive, condemning the Trump administration’s attacks on the press and criticizing the Walker Art Center’s decision to dismantle a sculpture after accusations that it was “cultural appropriation.”

Joan Bertin Honored by Freedom to Read Foundation

NCAC Press Release:  Joan Bertin, the National Coalition Against Censorship’s (NCAC) longtime executive director, is a 2017 recipient of the Freedom to Read Foundation’s (FTRF) Roll of Honor Award, which recognizes individuals for outstanding contributions to safeguarding intellectual freedom and the right to read.

Joan Bertin

The FTRF, which is affiliated with the American Library Association, protects and defends the First Amendment to the Constitution and supports the right of individuals to access information. Bertin is being recognized for her efforts to provide “support, education, and direct advocacy to people facing book challenges or bans in schools and libraries.”  In announcing the award, the FTRF observes that under Bertin’s leadership, NCAC has defended hundreds of book titles across the country, helping ensure that thousands of children will continue to enjoy literary masterpieces and popular young adult novels.

Bertin said, “I am deeply honored by the award, especially for its recognition of NCAC’s contributions to the protection of the intellectual freedom rights of young people.  Books can contribute so much to kids’ intellectual and emotional development, and it has been my privilege and pleasure to protect their right to read.”

The award will be presented at the 2017 American Library Association Annual Conference during its Opening General Session on Friday, June 24, in Chicago.

New Additions to FIRE’s Online First Amendment Library

Forthcoming: Timelines on Movie Censorship and Anthony Comstock

Forthcoming Books

Professor Loren Glass, English Dept., University of Iowa

Abstract: Grove Press and its house journal, The Evergreen Review, revolutionized the publishing industry and radicalized the reading habits of the “paperback generation.” In telling this story, Rebel Publisher offers a new window onto the long 1960s, from 1951, when Barney Rosset purchased the fledgling press for $3,000, to 1970, when the multimedia corporation into which he had built the company was crippled by a strike and feminist takeover. Grove Press was not only one of the entities responsible for ending censorship of the printed word in the United States but also for bringing avant-garde literature, especially drama, into the cultural mainstream. Much of this happened thanks to Rosset, whose charismatic leadership was crucial to Grove’s success. With chapters covering world literature and the Latin American boom; experimental drama such as the Theater of the Absurd, the Living Theater, and the political epics of Bertolt Brecht; pornography and obscenity, including the landmark publication of the complete work of the Marquis de Sade; revolutionary writing, featuring Rosset’s daring pursuit of the Bolivian journals of Che Guevara; and underground film, including the innovative development of the pocket filmscript, Loren Glass covers the full spectrum of Grove’s remarkable achievement as a communications center for the counterculture.”

Related: Barney Rosset, Rosset: My Life in Publishing and How I Fought Censorship (2016)

New & Notable Blog Posts

  1. Ruthann Robson, En Banc Ninth Circuit Upholds Liquor Regulation Against First Amendment Challenge, Constitutional Law Prof Blog, June 23, 2017 (“In its en banc opinion in Retail Digital Network v. Prieto, the Ninth Circuit rejected a First Amendment challenge to a California prohibition of alcohol manufacturers and wholesalers from providing anything of value to retailers in exchange for advertising their alcohol products.”)
  2. Zach Greenberg, Supreme Court strikes down law prohibiting disparaging trademarks, affirms protection for offensive expression, FIRE, June 20, 2017

News, Op-eds, Editorials & Blog Posts

Ilya Shapiro, Even sex offenders have First Amendment rights, Washington Examiner, June 19, 2017

  1. Alex Swoyer, Islamic State flag on New Hampshire dam raises First Amendment questions in times of terrorism, Washington Times, June 25, 2017
  2. Mark Joseph Stern, Does Partisan Gerrymandering Violate the First Amendment?, Slate, June 19, 2017

Next Scheduled FAN, #159: June 14, 2017

Last Scheduled FAN, # 157Today: Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearing on campus free speech

Last FAN, #157.1Music to their ears — The Slants win in SCOTUS: Commentaries, Podcasts & Interviews