Tagged: Constitutional Law

0

FAN 137 (First Amendment News) Backpage.com removes adult content due to government censorship — vows to fight First Amendment battles

Seattle. This from a press release from Backpage.com:

As the direct result of unconstitutional government censorship, Backpage.com has removed its Adult content section from the highly popular classified website, effective immediately. For years, the legal system protecting freedom of speech prevailed, but new government tactics, including pressuring credit card companies to cease doing business with Backpage, have left the company with no other choice but to remove the content in the United States.

As federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner has described, the goal is either to “suffocate” Backpage out of existence or use the awesome powers of the government to force Backpage to follow in the footsteps of Craigslist and abandon its Adult advertising section. Judge Posner described such tactics as “a formula for permitting unauthorized, unregulated, foolproof, lawless government coercion.” [Backpage.com v. Dart, 7th Cir., 2015]

“It’s a sad day for America’s children victimized by prostitution,” said Dr. Lois Lee, Founder and President, Children of the Night, a leading national hotline and shelter program for victims of sex trafficking based in Los Angeles. “Backpage.com was a critical investigative tool depended on by America’s vice detectives and agents in the field to locate and recover missing children and to arrest and successfully prosecute the pimps who prostitute children.” She added, “The ability to search for and track potentially exploited children on a website and have the website bend over backwards to help and cooperate with police the way Backpage did was totally unique. It not only made law enforcement’s job easier, it made them much more effective at rescuing kids and convicting pimps.”

Backpage.com was created thirteen years ago by Jim Larkin and Michael Lacey, through their newspaper company, New Times Media, to compete with Craigslist, the nation’s largest online classified ad platform. Larkin and Lacey were pioneers in independent journalism, establishing Village Voice Media in 1970 to provide alternative news coverage of the Vietnam war and later served as editor and publisher of twenty weekly newspapers.

As The Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have observed, the Senate subcommittee has engaged in an “invasive, burdensome inquiry into Backpage.com’s editorial practices [that] creates an intense chilling effect, not only for Backpage but for any website operator seeking to define their own editorial viewpoint and moderation procedures for the third-party content they host.” [amicus brief below]

This will not end the fight for online freedom of speech. Backpage.com will continue to pursue its efforts in court to vindicate its First Amendment rights and those of other online platforms for third party expression.

 Appellants’ Reply Brief, Ferrer v. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (D.C. Cir., oral arguments pending)

Lawyers for Backpage.com re Appellants’ Reply Brief:

  • Steven R. Ross & Stanley M. Brand (Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld)
  • Robert D. Luskin, Stephen B. Kinnaird, & Jamie S. Gardner (Paul Hastings)
  • Robert Corn-Revere & Ronald London (Davis Wright Tremaine)

Amicus Brief on behalf of DKT Liberty Project, Cato Institute & Reason Foundation (supporting Appellant) (counsel: Jessica Ring Amunson & Joshua M. Parker (Jenner & Block))

Jessica Ring Amunson, Joshua M. Parker, Ilya Shapiro, & Manuel S. Klausner, Ferrer v. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Cato Institute, Nov. 22, 2016

Related links

Cert Petition: Case to Watch 

The case is is McKay v. Federspiel in which a cert. petition has just been filed in the Supreme Court.  The issues in the case are:

1. Whether a law criminalizing protected speech or conduct implies a threat to prosecute such that a pre-enforcement challenge is proper without any additional showing that enforcement is imminent.

2. Whether, absent extenuating circumstances, there is a constitutional right to make a public recording of courtroom proceedings.

Summary of Facts: the chief judges of Saginaw County, Michigan issued a joint administrative order limiting the use of electronic devices in courtrooms and court-related facilities in the Saginaw County Governmental Center. Robert McKay, a resident of neighboring Tuscola County who states that he wishes to record law enforcement officers’ and judges’ activities inside the Governmental Center, contends that the administrative order violates his federal constitutional rights.

Sixth Circuit opinion (here)

Lead counsel for Petitioner: John J. Bursch 

Andy Hoag, Federal judge: Saginaw County cellphone ban not unconstitutional; preliminary injunction denied, Michigan Live, April 18, 2014

[ht: A.L.]

Court Denies Cert. in Internet Communications Case

On Monday the Court denied cert in Flytenow, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration. One of the issues in the case was: whether the circuit court erred in holding that the Federal Aviation Administration could, consistent with the First Amendment, lawfully discriminate against content-based Internet communications because of the message conveyed and the means chosen by pilots to convey it.

[ht: Art Spitzer]

Public Employee: No 1-A protection for racial epithet Read More

1

FAN 136 (First Amendment News) 2016: The Year in Review, including “the best of”

This is the 43rd and last FAN post for this year. All the hyperlinked posts for this year are listed below by month. Also below are some highlights of the past year along with a few “best ofs” of 2016:

Selected Highlights

Deaths: Justice Antonin Scalia. See FAN 97.1: Justice Scalia Dies — Free-Speech Legacy (Feb. 13, 2016)

Supreme Court: The Court decided two First Amendment free speech cases:

Retirements: Steven Shapiro, the ACLU’s national legal director

Biggest First Amendment issue of 2016: Campus free-speech controversy (yet again!)

Beta launch of FIRE’s online First Amendment Library (Nov. 14, 2016)

Man of the Year

John Ellison, University of Chicago Dean of Students

Letter to the Class of 2020

Woman of the Year

Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo

vetoes overbroad “revenge porn” bill

___________________________________________

The First Amendment & The Best of 2016

unknown

 Best Supreme cert. petition: Deepak Gupta, brief in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman

 Best Supreme Court amicus briefs:

Best Supreme Court oral argument: Thomas Goldstein in Heffernan v. City of Patterson (2016)

Best lower court First Amendment opinionWomen’s Health Link, Inc. v. Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corp. (7th Cir., 2016, per Posner, J.)

Best lower court amicus briefWikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency (4th Cir., 2016) (Chelsea J. Crawford, Joshua Treem, Margot E. Kaminski, Marc J. Blitz, A. Michael Froomkin, David Goldberger, James Grimmelmann, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Neil M. Richards, & Katherine Jo Strandburg)

 Best new First Amendment organization: Knight First Amendment Institute (see here)

 Best group defending First Amendment rightsFoundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)

 Best report: PEN America, And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion & Free Speech at U.S. Universities

 Best speech: Geoffrey Stone, “Free Speech on Campus: A Challenge of Our Times

 Best interview: Nico Perriono, The Daughters: Carlin, Pryor & Bruce Speak OutSo to Speak

 Best book: Stephen Solomon’s Revolutionary Dissent: How the Founding Generation Created the Freedom of Speech (2016) (see Salon discussion here)

Best documentaryCan We Take a Joke?

Best essays:

 Best law review articles:

Best scholarly conferenceBrooklyn Law Symposium: “Free Speech Under Fire — The Future of the First Amendment” (see also here)

Best conference for practitionersAbrams Institiute Conference on Commercial Speech (June 13, 2016)

Best new First Amendment blogIn A Crowded Theater

Best event: Newseum Institute: Pear v. United States (see also here)

Best funder of First Amendment:  John S. and James L. Knight Foundation (see here)

Best supporter of the First Amendment: Flying Dog Beer (see here and here)

→ The Year in Review: FAN Posts for 2016 ← 

January

FAN 92: Another License-Plate Case — Wooley v. Maynard Defense Raised in Cert. Petition (Jan. 6, 2016)

FAN 93: “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?” — Steve Shiffrin Book Coming This Summer (Jan. 13, 2016)

FAN 94: Brooklyn Law School to Host Symposium: “Free Speech Under Fire — The Future of the First Amendment” (Jan. 20, 2016)

FAN 95: “Fifty Shades of Grey” too Blue for Idaho? (Jan. 27, 2016)

February

FAN 96: Animal Rights Group Claims First Amendment Right to Lift Park Service Closure of Yellowstone Park During Bison Capture (Feb. 3, 2016)

FAN 97: Trend Continues: ACLU’s 2016 Workplan Omits Mention of Protecting First Amendment Free-Expression Rights — No Longer a Fundraising Concern? (Feb. 10, 2016)

FAN 98: The Roberts Court’s 5-4 First Amendment Rulings — Will They Survive? (Feb. 17, 2016)

FAN 99: Welcome to the Marketplace of Ideologies — Where Ideas go to Die (Feb. 24, 2016)

March

FAN 100: FIRE Spreads — Group to Launch Online First Amendment Library (March 9, 2016)

FAN 101: Levine & Wermiel on First Amendment & Right of Publicity — Using Justices’ Papers to Understand Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co. (March 16, 2016)

FAN 102: Len Niehoff on Hulk Hogan’s $140.1M Award Against Gawker (March 23, 2016)

April

FAN 103: Coming Soon: New Book by Stephen Solomon on Dissent in the Founding Era (April 6, 2016)

FAN 104: Documentary on Comedy, Campus Codes & Free Speech to Air at National Constitution Center (April 13, 2016)

FAN 105:  Forthcoming: Tushnet, Chen & Blocher, “Beyond Words” — The Art of Protecting Non-Speech as Speech” (April 20, 2016)

FAN 106:  The Heffernan Case, the Chief Justice’s Curious Vote, the Significance of Justice Scalia’s Absence, & the Importance of Motive (April 27, 2016)

May 

FAN 107:  FTC’s Power to curb misleading ads remains intact (May 4, 2016)

FAN 108: Senate Races Could Shape the Future of the First Amendment — Campaign Spending Wars in Play (May 11, 2016)

FAN 109: Abrams Institute to Host Event on Commercial Speech (May 18, 2016)

FAN 110:  Steve Shapiro to Step Down as ACLU’s Legal Director (May 25, 2016)

June

FAN 111: Flying Dog Brewery Launches First Amendment Society (June 1, 2016)

FAN 112:  “Is First Amendment “almost entirely without content”? Yes, writes Mark Tushnet” (June 8, 2016)

FAN 113: “Abrams Court” Breaks with Tradition & Allows Cameras in Courtroom (June 22, 2016)

FAN 114: 2015 Term: What Happened to the Big Cases? — Equally Divided or Cert. Denied (June 29, 2016)

July

FAN 115: Profile: Jameel Jaffer to Head New Knight First Amendment Institute (July 6, 2016)

FAN 116: Farber on Scalia & the Abortion Protest Cases (July 13, 2016)

FAN 117: Center for Competitive Politics Prevails in Challenge to Utah Campaign Finance Law (July 20, 2016)

FAN 118: University of Cape Town Disinvites Flemming Rose — Floyd Abrams Dissents (July 27, 2016)

August

FAN 119: Snapshots of David Cole #2: Chipping Away at Citizens United (Aug. 17, 2016)

FAN 120: Snapshots of David Cole #2: Chipping Away at Citizens United (Aug. 24, 2016)

FAN 121: New York law to combat Citizens United is “constitutionally unsound” says NYCLU (Aug. 31, 2106)

September 

FAN 122: Alito’s prophesy? Cert. petition in Gov. Speech case raises questions about future of doctrine (Sept. 7, 2016)

FAN 123: When you think of free speech, think of “45” — New book by Stephen Solomon (Sept. 13, 2016)

FAN 124:  Ellen DeGeneres raises First Amendment defense in defamation case (Sept. 21, 2016)

FAN 125: Forthcoming book spotlights First Amendment freedom & LGBT equality (Sept. 28, 2016)

October

FAN 126: Geoffrey Stone: “Free Speech on Campus: A Challenge of Our Times” (Oct. 5, 2016)

FAN 127: Cert Petition Raises Question of Standard of Review in Retaliation Case for Calling the President a “Communist” (Oct. 12, 2016)

FAN 128:  Ten States Buttress High School Students’ Press Rights — Extend Protection Beyond (Oct. 19, 2016)

FAN 129: A 10-year chronology: Trump’s lawsuits & threatened ones involving freedom of speech & press (Oct. 26, 2016)

November 

FAN 130: “Porn Panic” Prompts Pushback (Nov. 2, 2016)

FAN 131: Forthcoming: Chemerinsky & Gillman on the importance of free speech on college (Nov. 10, 2016)

FAN 132: FIRE Launches First Amendment Online Library (Nov. 16, 2016)

FAN 133: Slants trademark case might be decided on statutory grounds (Nov. 23, 2016)

December

FAN 134:  “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” ignites First Amendment controversy  (Dec. 7, 2016)

FAN 135: “Protect the Flag Act” Introduced in Congress” (Dec. 14, 2016)

→ Year in Review: FAN Posts for 2015 ←

 FAN 91: The Year in Review, including “the best of” (Dec. 30, 2015)

2

FAN 135.1 (First Amendment News) First Amendment Salon: Jess Bravin Interviews ACLU’s David Cole

1a_salon_featured

The last First Amendment Salon has just been posted. It involved a dialogue between Jess Bravin (Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal) and David Cole (Georgetown Law Professor and incoming National Legal Director of the ACLU).

The Salon, the eleventh, took place on December 8th at the law offices of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz in Washington,  D.C. and was video cast live to their offices in New York City.

The event was kindly filmed and audio recorded by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), this in partnership with the Salons. The Salons also work in partnership with the Floyd Abrams Institute for Free Expression.

Thanks to the folks at FIRE, the Salons will now be available in podcast and video form and on various platforms:

  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: podcast available here on FIRE’s So to Speak site.
  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: podcast available here on iTunes
  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: podcast available here on SoundCloud
  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: podcast available here on Stitcher
  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: video available here on First Amendment Library
  • David Cole & Jess Bravin Salon: video available here on YouTube
Anthony Dick raises a question

Anthony Dick raises a question regarding compelled expression

Complimentary beverages were kindly provided by Flying Dog Beer.

 

 

 

1

FAN 135 (First Amendment News) “Protect the Flag Act” Introduced in Congress

On December 2, 2016, Congressman Michael R.  Turner (R-OH) introduced the “Protect the Flag Act” (H.R. 6433).  Section 2 of the proposed bill provides:

“(a) In General.—Federal funds may not be made available to an institution of higher education (as defined in section 102(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(a))) that, pursuant to an official policy of the institution to prohibit the display of the flag of the United States by the institution, removes, censors, takes down, prohibits, or otherwise halts display of a flag of the United States.”

“(b) Reinstatement Of Eligibility.—The prohibition described in subsection (a) shall cease to apply with respect to an institution described in such subsection upon complete and proper reinstatement, by the institution in its official capacity, of the flag of the United States at any and all locations on campus property (including across multiple campuses, if applicable) from which a previously displayed flag of the United States was removed, censored, taken down, prohibited, or otherwise halted from display pursuant to an official policy of the institution to prohibit the display of the flag of the United States by the institution.”

The summary caption for the Bill states: “To render ineligible for Federal funds any institution of higher education that removes, censors, takes down, prohibits, or otherwise halts display of a flag of the United States.” Fifty-two other House Republicans have signed onto the measure.

A group of demonstrators, many carrying American flags, gathered on Nov. 27 outside the campus of Hampshire College in Massachusetts. (Instagram/@axle_maximus via Storyful)

A group of demonstrators, many carrying American flags, gathered on Nov. 27 outside the campus of Hampshire College in Massachusetts. (Instagram/@axle_maximus via Storyful)

According to a news story by Joseph Cohn wriitng for FIRE, the “bill was likely inspired by the recent controversy at Massachusetts’ Hampshire College in which the institution temporarily decided to stop flying the American flag. Hampshire’s decision came after their own American flag was stolen and burned amongst protests that the flag, a proud symbol to some, represented fear and exclusion to others. According to CNN, the school’s Board of Regents then decided to lower the flag to half-staff in order to ‘continue the campus discussion on the flag’s meaning,’ but some interpreted that decision as a protest of the election results. It was then that the college decided to not fly the flag at all, spurring harsh public criticism.”

See O’Reilly Factor video clip here (Watters’ World: Flag controversy edition).

According to a December 2, 2016 Boston Globe story, “Hampshire College, which prompted a firestorm by removing the Stars and Stripes three weeks ago, restored the banner to the campus on Friday as its president and students expressed hope that the controversy would inspire a forthright dialogue.”

Hampshire College President’s Comments

“We did not lower the flag to make a political statement,” Hampshire College President Jonathan Lash said. According to a news report in the Daily Wire, Lash added: “Nor did we intend to cause offense to veterans, military families or others for whom the flag represents service and sacrifice. We acted solely to facilitate much-needed dialogue on our campus about how to dismantle the bigotry that is prevalent in our society. We understand that many who hold the flag as a powerful symbol of national ideals and their highest aspirations for the country — including members of our own community — felt hurt by our decisions, and that we deeply regret.”

Congressman Michael Turner

Congressman Michael Turner

Congressman Turner’s Comments  

“I am proud to introduce legislation that will protect the American flag from censorship across the country,” Congressman Turner said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. “The American flag is a symbol of freedom throughout the world and should be respected as such. Recent action by Hampshire College to remove the American flag from its campus was a blatant act of censorship. Furthermore, Hampshire College’s decision disrespected our servicemembers, veterans, and the liberties our flag embodies. We must work to ensure that such acts of censorship are not supported by the government in the future.”

Though unlikely to pass this year owing to time constraints, the bill would be considered next year.

Headline: “Oklahoma To Require Anti-Abortion Signs In Public Restrooms”

Hayley Miller, writing in the Huffington Post, reports that “Oklahoma may require public restrooms in restaurants, hospitals, public schools, hotels and nursing homes to post signs with anti-abortion sentiments as part of a drive against the procedure.”

“The state’s board of health was due to discuss Tuesday regulations that would force any restrooms in buildings regulated by the Oklahoma Health Department to carry signs that state”:

There are many public and private agencies willing and able to help you carry your child to term and assist you and your child after your child is born, whether you choose to keep your child or to place him or her for adoption. The State of Oklahoma strongly urges you to contact them if you are pregnant.

State senator AJ Griffin

State senator A.J. Griffin

According to an Associated Press story, “the State Board of Health will consider regulations for the signs on Tuesday. Businesses and other organizations will have to pay an estimated $2.3 million to put up the signs because the Legislature didn’t approve any money for them. The provision for the signs was tucked into a law that the Legislature passed this year that requires the state to develop informational material “for the purpose of achieving an abortion-free society.” The signs must be posted by January 2018.”

“The anti-abortion group Oklahomans for Life requested the bill,” reports the St. Louis Post Dispatch. “The sponsor, Sen. A.J. Griffin, said she may revise the measure in the upcoming legislative session to more narrowly target it to exclude some facilities.”

“‘I do see how it is going to need to be tempered a tad,” said Griffin, a Republican from Guthrie. ‘We need to make sure we have something that’s reasonable and still effective.'”

[ht: David Horowitz]

Florida Abortion Law Challenged on First Amendment Grounds Read More

0

FAN 134 (First Amendment News) “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” ignites First Amendment controversy

The bill was proposed by Senators Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, and Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, to “ensure the Education Department has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents,” according to a news release. The senators say the act is not meant to infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment, but rather to address a recent uptick in hate crimes against Jewish students. The bill is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. . . . The bill has attracted criticism from groups including Palestine Legal and Jewish Voice for Peace, who say the proposed definition of anti-Semitism wrongly conflates any criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish sentiments. — Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed (Dec. 2, 2016)

* * * * 

View # 1: Opposition to the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”

Liz Jackson, a staff attorney for Palestine Legal in Oakland, recently published an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. The piece was titled “The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would damage free speech rights on campus.” Here are a few excerpts:

Liz Jackson

Liz Jackson

“[T]he U.S. Senate . . . pass[ed] a bill last week called the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, which cracks down on the constitutional rights of college students and faculty to criticize Israel. The House will vote on it any day now.”

“The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act endorses the State Department definition of anti-Semitism, which includes ‘delegitimizing’ Israel, ‘demonizing’ Israel or holding Israel to a ‘double standard.’ The bill directs the Department of Education to consider this definition when investigating complaints of anti-Semitism on campus. But the bill does not add any new protections for Jewish students; the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Department of Education’s interpretation of the statute, already protects Jewish students against discrimination.”

“The State Department standard is highly controversial because it conflates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Jewish hatred, shutting down debate by suggesting that anyone who looks critically at Israeli policy is somehow beyond the pale. It has no place on college campuses in particular, where we need students to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas — especially around our world’s most intractable problems, such as Israel’s nearly 50-year military occupation of Palestine.”

“The University of California rejected the same definition in 2015 after an outcry from free-speech advocates across the political spectrum, newspapers, students, graduate student instructors, and Jewish and other civil rights organizationsJewish commentators, including the definition’s original drafter, Kenneth Stern, repudiated its use on college campuses.”

“As a Jewish student at Berkeley Law in 2010, I joined the campaign pushing the university to divest from companies complicit in Israel’s occupation and violations of Palestinian rights. I was shocked when Israel advocacy organizations claimed that our support for Palestinian equality was so distressing for some Jewish students that the university should not even let us debate the issue. . . .”

View # 2: In Defense of the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”

This from a press release from the Anti-Defamation League:

“The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today hailed Senate passage of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, legislation which provides important guidance for the Department of Education and the Department of Justice for federal anti-discrimination investigations involving anti-Semitism, including on campus.”

unknown“The act addresses a core concern of Jewish and pro-Israel students and parents: When does the expression of anti-Semitism, anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Zionist beliefs cross the line from First Amendment protected free expression to unlawful discriminatory conduct?”

“ADL played a central role in working with U.S. Senators Tim Scott (R-SC) and Bob Casey (D-PA) in crafting and promoting the legislation. The League also urged the House of Representatives to approve the legislation before adjournment later this month.”

“‘We welcome Senate passage of this important legislation, which will help the Department of Education and Department of Justice to effectively determine whether an investigation of an incident of anti-Semitism is warranted under federal education anti-discrimination laws,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. “This act addresses a core concern of Jewish and pro-Israel students and parents: When does the expression of anti-Semitism, anti-Israel sentiment and anti-Zionist beliefs cross the line from First Amendment protected free expression to unlawful, discriminatory conduct.'”

“. . . . This legislation uses a 2010 definition of anti-Semitism developed by the State Department’s Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as a reference point that can be useful in their cases, including select instances when discriminatory anti-Semitic conduct may be couched as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.  The legislation instructs the Department of Education to draw on this definition as part of its assessment of whether incidents are motivated by anti-Semitism when investigating possible violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on individuals’ Jewish heritage or ethnicity. The legislation takes great pains to protect freedom of expression.”

“‘To effectively address reported anti-Jewish incidents that may violate federal education anti-discrimination laws, it is necessary to understand the evolving, current manifestations of anti-Semitism,” Mr. Greenblatt said. “The State Department definition includes useful illustrative examples and can be an important resource.  However, it is also vital to accurately distinguish protected speech – including disagreement and even harsh criticism of the government of Israel – from harassing, intimidating, and discriminatory anti-Semitism.'” . . . .

Related Articles

Josh Nathan-Kazis, Expert on Hate Opposes Campus Anti-Semitism Bill — Based on Definition He Created, Forward, Dec. 6, 2016 (“‘If this bill is passed, its proponents will have the ability to threaten federal funding at colleges and universities where political speech against Israel occurs, and where administrators then don’t try to stop it, or fail to put the university on record calling such speech anti-Semitic,’ Stern wrote. ‘Think of the precedent this would set.'”)

Lea Speyer, Responding to Backlash, Co-Sponsor of House Antisemitism Act Insists Legislation Will Not ‘Diminish, Infringe on’ First Amendment Rights, The Algemeiner, Dec. 6, 2016

Headline: “Purdue’s free-speech orientation program could go national”

Writing in The College Fix, Greg Piper reports that “Indiana’s Purdue University is making a strong play for best public university in the country, based on its demonstrated commitment to free speech.”

unknown“And now it’s getting interest in taking that approach to other schools, whose leaders may be tiring of giving in to student demands to censor and punish students, faculty and staff for their speech and nonthreatening behaviors.”

“The university has been approached by NASPA (Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education) to present the “methodology” for its “free speech orientation program” – the first of its kind in the nation – at an upcoming conference, Director of Student Success Programs Dan Carpenter told the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. . . .”

Related: David Schutte, Law School holds First Amendment rights event, The Cavalier Daily, Dec. 2016

White nationalist’s speech draws protests at Texas A&M University

Richard Spencer

Richard Spencer

Reuters reporter Lisa Maria Garza reports that “Texas A&M University students and activists protested against a speech on Tuesday by white nationalist Richard Spencer, who was filmed at a conference last month saying “Hail Trump”, drawing Nazi-like salutes from some spectators.”

“About 1,000 demonstrators waved flags, marched, sang songs and shouted through loudspeakers outside the Memorial Student Center on the campus, where Spencer was speaking, as state police in riot gear stood by, blocking them from entering.”

“Caitlin Miles, a 26-year-old graduate student, stood on top of a box and yelled over the sound of tambourines and trumpets, telling her fellow demonstrators not to engage with any Spencer supporters.”

“‘He has made a lot of remarks and promoted chants that hail back to Nazi slogans. This is a campus that sacrificed nearly half of its student body to fight Nazis,’ Miles told Reuters. . . .”

“The university in College Station, Texas, said its leaders explored whether it could legally prohibit Spencer’s event, but ultimately recognized its obligation to uphold free speech, university spokeswoman Amy Smith said. . . .”

Trump & the Flap over the Flag

screen-shot-2016-12-05-at-11-42-18-pm

Justice Antonin Scalia – Flag Burning Is Free Speech (2012 interview with CNN)

Robert Corn-Revere on Flag Desecration and Free Speech, Closeup, Newseum (02-28-08) (begins at 13:20 into discussion)

Robert Corn-Revere, Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, First Amendment Center First Report (07.01.05)

  1. Kathleen Parker, Trump seems ready to burn down First Amendment, The Register-Guard, Dec. 6, 2016
  2. Kirsten Salyer, Burning Flags, Screaming ‘Trump’ and Our First Amendment, Time, Dec. 5, 2016
  3. Editorial, So now Trump is “endangering” the First Amendment, Hot Air, Dec. 5, 2016
  4. Erik Wemple, Pray for the First Amendment. Now., Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2016
  5. Scott Bomboy, Flag burning and the First Amendment: Yet another look at the two, Constitution Daily, Nov. 30, 2016
  6. Andrew Napolitano, Trump ‘offended’ the first amendment !!, Fox news, Nov. 30, 2016
  7. Alan Dershowitz, The First Amendment is not broken so let’s not try to fix it, Fox News, Nov. 30, 2016
  8. Mark Hensch, GOP rep: ‘No president is allowed to burn the First Amendment’, The Hill, Nov. 29, 2016
  9. Mark Hensch, House GOP leader on flag burning: ‘We’ll protect our First Amendment’, The Hill, Nov. 29, 2016
  10. Philip Bump, Donald Trump v. the First Amendment, Part 5, Washington Post, Nov. 29, 2016
  11. Max Kutner, Before Donald Trump Called for Flag-Burning Jail Time, Hillary Did, Newsweek, Nov. 29, 2016
  12. Ken Paulson, Trump tweet set Constitution ablaze, USA Today, Nov. 29, 2016

Justice Alito: Remarks at Federalist Society Conference Read More

0

FAN 133.1 (First Amendment News) FIRE to podcast First Amendment Salons

Lee Levine

Lee Levine

The Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) will podcast future First Amendment Salons, the next of which is scheduled for December 8th in Washington, D.C. That salon, the eleventh, will feature a discussion between David Cole (the new national legal director of the ACLU) and Jess Bravin (the Supreme Court correspondent for the  Wall Street Journal).

Henceforth, a podcast of the Salons will be available on FIRE’s So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast station hosted by Nico Perrino.  A video of the Salons will also be available on FIRE’s First Amendment Online library.

Lee Levine, one of the Salon’s co-chairs, stated: “The First Amendment Salon has quickly developed a well deserved reputation as the leading forum for spirited and frank discussion about the role of the freedom of expression in contemporary society.  Now, more than ever, we believe it is vital to bring those discussions to as wide an audience as possible and we are delighted to be working with FIRE to make that happen.”

screen-shot-2016-12-02-at-11-34-44-am

Nico Perrino

Nico Perrino

“The First Amendment Salon has become an important platform for bringing together the most prominent figures in the First Amendment community to regularly discuss hot-button free speech issues,” said Perrino, FIRE’s director of communications. “We are thrilled to partner with the Salon’s organizers to share these essential conversations with a wider audience on So to Speak.”

* * * *

The salons, which began in April 2014, engage members of the First Amendment community – lawyers, academics, journalists, and activists – in an ongoing discussion of key free speech issues of our day. Each by-invitation only program involves a 90-minute discussion concerning a timely topic related to freedom of expression, whether in a contemporary Supreme Court case, book, article, legal brief, or memorandum.

In September 2014, the Salons formed an association with the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at the Yale Law School.  And in August 2015, the Salon first went “on the road,” beginning with an event in Los Angeles and thereafter one in Chicago.  The last salon involved a discussion between Professor Geoffrey Stone and Judge Richard Posner (YouTube video here).

This past October the First Amendment Salon launched its first in the “More Speech” series of Occasional Papers” to be circulated by the salon and the Floyd Abrams Institute. The purpose of these “More Speech papers is to introduce the practicing First Amendment bar to some new and important scholarly work that might be useful in litigation. Thus, the Salon will invite a noted First Amendment lawyer to write a foreword to a particular scholarly article. By the same token, from time to time it will invite a noted First Amendment scholar to write a foreword to some important appellate brief, which we think might be of interest to the academic community. In this way, among others, the Salon hopes to enhance the communication between the practicing bar and the legal academy (and among journalists and activists, too).

The next Salon will be on April 5, 2017 at the Floyd Abrams Institute at Yale Law School. Adam Liptak (Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times) will interview Mr. Abrams in connection with his latest book, The Soul of the First Amendment (Yale University Press, 2017).

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

Advisory Board

  • Floyd Abrams, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
  • Sandra Baron, Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression
  • 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
0

FAN 133 (First Amendment News) Slants trademark case might be decided on statutory grounds

The Slants band

The Slants band

The briefs are still being filed in Lee v. Tamthe disparagement trademark case. While the briefs for the Petitioner are in

those for the Respondent have yet to be submitted.

John C. Connell

John C. Connell

No doubt, First Amendment arguments will demand a lion’s share of attention in those briefs. But will the Court ultimately go that far in deciding the case, or might it take refuge in the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and decide the controversial case on statutory grounds?

→ Enter John C. Connell, counsel of record for the Respondent (with him on the brief: Stuart Banner, Eugene Volokh, Ronald Coleman & Joel MacMull). In his brief, Mr. Connell devotes considerable attention to the following argument: “The Lanham Act’s disparagement clause does not bar the registration of respondent’s trademark.” Here are some excerpts from the Respondent’s brief related to this issue:

  1. Statutory Claim Preserved: “Under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, does THE SLANTS ‘disparage  . . . persons, living or dead’? At every stage of this litigation, Simon Tam has argued that section 2(a) does not bar the registration of his trademark. He is thus entitled to defend the judgment below on this ground.”
  2. Pressing Need to Decided Statutory Issue: “Section 2(a)’s disparagement clause has existed for 70 years, but the Court has never interpreted it. The PTO has been left to develop its own disparagement jurisprudence, which has wandered ever farther from the statute’s text and from any reasonable understanding of what Congress intended. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to guide the PTO back to the text of the statute.
  3. No Statutory Disparagement: “Simon Tam and his band members are not disparaging Asian- Americans. They are doing precisely the opposite; they are appropriating a slur and using it as a badge of pride. Simon Tam is not a bigot; he is fighting big- otry with the time-honored technique of seizing the bigots’ own language. “Slant” can certainly be used in a disparaging way, but Tam is not using it that way. Even the most cursory awareness of the Slants’ music and the way it is packaged makes that clear.”
  4. PTO Misapplied Statutory Test: “Rather than considering the full context surrounding Simon Tam’s use of THE SLANTS, the PTO simply looked up the word ‘slant in several dictionaries. Rather than asking whether THE SLANTS disparages Asian-Americans generally, the PTO quoted the views of a blogger and a few self-styled spokespeople for Asian-Americans, to conclude that ‘a substantial composite of the referenced group find the term objectionable.’ Had the PTO followed the statute . . . the result would have been different.”
  5. Statute does not apply to “Collective Entities”: “The PTO also erred in construing section 2(a)’s bar on the registration of marks that may disparage ‘persons, living or dead’ to include marks that disparage non-juristic collective entities like racial and ethnic groups. In fact, the quoted phrase includes only natural and juristic persons. . . . Section 2(a)’s disparagement clause bars the registration of marks—such as JOHN SMITH IS EVIL—that disparage natural persons. It also bars the registration of marks—such as MICROSOFT IS EVIL—that disparage juristic persons. But the disparagement clause explicitly does not bar the registration of marks that disparage collective entities that are not juristic persons.”
  6. Original Purpose of Disparagement Clause: “The purpose of the disparagement clause was not to protect the civil rights of racial and ethnic minorities. Rather, the purpose appears to have been to bring American trademark law into conformity with the language of a recent treaty. In 1931, the United States ratified the Inter-American Convention for Trade Mark and Commercial Protection. 46 Stat. 2907 (1931). Article 3.4 of the Convention provided for the denial of registration to trademarks ‘[w]hich tend to expose persons, institutions, beliefs, national symbols or those of associations of public interest, to ridicule or contempt.’ One of the primary purposes of the Lanham Act was, as the House and Senate re- ports both explained, ‘[t]o carry out by statute our international commitments.’ Indeed, the full title of the Lanham Act was ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trade-marks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes.’ . . .  Congress would not turn its attention to protect- ing the rights of racial and ethnic minorities for many years to come. When it did, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Congress would refer to race and ethnicity explicitly, unlike in the Lanham Act. Section 2(a) thus protects natural and juristic persons against disparagement; it does not protect racial and ethnic groups.”

Such arguments may carry the day and thus could prevent the Court from reaching the First Amendment issues. Let’s see how oral arguments play out.

* * * *

Here are the Briefs in support of neither party:

See also Erica Goldberg, Lee v. Tam: Offensive Trademarks at the Supreme Court: Speech Rights and Government Prerogative (A Series): Part One: The Weighty Legal QuestionsIn a Crowded Theater, Oct. 24, 2016

True Threats to Press Freedom?

 Emily Bazelon, Billionaires vs. the Press in the Era of Trump, New York Times, Nov. 22, 2016 (“Once installed in the White House, Trump will have a wider array of tools at his disposal, and his record suggests that, more than his predecessors, he will try to use the press — and also control and subdue it.”)

Brent Griffiths, Trump to reporters: ‘You’ll be happy’ with my views on the First Amendment, Politico, Nov. 22, 2016 (“President-elect Donald Trump vowed that reporters would be ‘happy’ with his stewardship of the First Amendment under his presidency, despite past promises to make it easier to sue them. ‘I think you’ll be happy, I think you’ll be happy,’ Trump told New York Times reporters, editors and columnists gathered at the newspaper’s Times Square headquarters on Tuesday.”)

unknown Joe Concha, Breitbart News planning lawsuit against ‘major media company,’ The Hill, Nov. 15, 2016 (“Breitbart News Network, a pro-America, conservative website, is preparing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a major media company for its baseless and defamatory claim that Breitbart News is a ‘white nationalist website,’” the statement reads.”Breitbart News cannot allow such vicious racial lies to go unchallenged, especially by cynical, politically-motivated competitors seeking to diminish its 42 million monthly readers and its number one in the world political Facebook page. Breitbart News rejects racism in all its varied and ugly forms. Always has, always will,” the statement continues.)

Peter Scheer, Can the First Amendment survive President Donald Trump?, Cal Coastal News, November 21, 2016 (“To get back at the New York Times, the Trump administration can go after its biggest shareholder, Mexican telecom magnate Carlos Slim. To get back at CNN, the Trump administration can have antitrust regulators in the Justice Department and FTC put the brakes on the proposed merger of Time-Warner (CNN’s owner) and AT&T.  And the same pain can be visited upon scores of other US firms, not limited to media, which, having criticized Trump’s policies, find themselves in the government’s crosshairs.”)

Susan Seager, Melania Trump’s ‘Revenge Lawyer’ Apparently Doesn’t Understand First Amendment, Law Newz, Nov. 19, 2016 (“Charles Harder, the Beverly Hills lawyer who destroyed Gawker as an act of revenge bankrolled by Silicon Valley mogul Peter Thiel and is now the attack-dog-lawyer for Melania Trump, wants to take down mainstream reporters and a 52-year-old Supreme Court decision. Problem is, like many tough-talking celeb lawyers, Harder misunderstands the law.”)

Ashly Cullins, Trump’s First-Amendment Nemesis Explains How He’ll Defend Any Defamation Lawsuits (Q&A), The Hollywood Reporter, Nov. 17, 2016  (“After then-candidate, now President-elect Donald Trump threatened to sue The New York Times and his sexual assault accusers for defamation in October, attorney Ted Boutrous turned to Twitter to tell the paper, and anyone else finding themselves in a similar situation, that he’d take on any free speech case brought by Trump, pro-bono. . .”

Question: What are some of the weapons that might be used against the press?

Boutrous’ Reply: “Subpoenas to reporters, going after whistleblowers, having an administration that’s even worse at responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, denying press credentials to news organizations, seeking prior restraints to stop publication of newsworthy information, and continuing to attack journalism and undermine its legitimacy from the bully pulpit of the presidency. We need vigorous, aggressive journalism as a democracy. The framers of the Constitution knew that people need to have accurate, factual information. If you have the president telling people that the best journalism in the world is wrong and evil, that is very harmful.”

Steve Benen, First Amendment faces unusual threats following Trump’s win, MSNBC, Nov. 14, 2016 (” One of the president-elect’s top aides raised the prospect of legal action against a critical senator; the president-elect himself is dishonestly attacking one of the nation’s top news outlets; Trump’s team is already taking new steps to limit press access; and the incoming Republican administration has taken aim at protesters voicing dissent in the wake of last week’s elections. If this is what we’re seeing in the first week – two months before Trump officially takes power – the First Amendment and its proponents are in for a very rough ride.”)

Mirren Gidda & Zach Schonfeld, Donald Trump’s Threat to Press Freedom: Why It Matters, Newsweek, Nov 12, 2016 (“Less than a month before the U.S. presidential election, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued an unprecedented statement denouncing the then-Republican nominee. ‘[Donald] Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign,’ said the committee, a New York-based organization that promotes press freedom. ‘A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States.’ With little more than two months before Trump takes the oath of office, the threat to the media—and the public’s right to know—is reality.”)

John Daniel Davidson, Mainstream Journalists Don’t Care About Free Speech Until Donald Trump Attacks It, The Federalist, Nov. 15, 2016 (“Trump’s cavalier attitude toward free speech isn’t unique. In fact, it’s a fundamental feature of the political Left. For all its wailing about free speech in the wake of Trump’s election . . . , the media spent eight years enabling and at times encouraging the Obama administration’s denigration of the First Amendment.”)

Hanging noose in yard unprotected by First Amendment Read More

0

FAN 132 (First Amendment News) FIRE Launches First Amendment Online Library

This past Monday some 100 people came to the Washington, D.C. scenic offices of Jones Day where the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE) hosted an event to launch the First Amendment Library, the only such online library in the nation.

This from the press release: “FIRE’s First Amendment Library is a free, online database of First Amendment-related materials, including illustrated timelines, educational materials, unique articles, and more than 900 Supreme Court cases concerning the First Amendment. The content available in the library serves as the foundation for an an easy-to-use, ever-expanding resource for students, law clerks, lawmakers, judges, lawyers, journalists, and anyone else who wants to learn about the First Amendment.”

“The First Amendment Library is a one-of-a-kind knowledge hub for all things relating to our Constitution’s first freedoms,” said FIRE Executive Director Robert Shibley. “FIRE is excited to share this resource with the world, and we hope that it will generate more interest in the First Amendment and its important history.”

Greg Lukianoff, Ron Collins & Robert Shibley

Greg Lukianoff, Ron Collins & Robert Shibley

The program was introduced by Greg Lukianoff (FIRE’s president & CEO), Robert Corn-Revere (First Amendment Lawyer), and Robert Shibley (FIRE’s executive director).

Here are a few samples of some of the contents of the online library:

The online library will be updated regularly and expanded greatly in the months and years ahead. For example, in the coming weeks new content will be added concerning everything from the 1734 trial of John Peter Zenger to the list of First Amendment free expression cases decided by the Roberts Courts to First Amendment briefs filed in the Supreme Court by noted appellate lawyers.     

Board of Advisors

  • Floyd Abrams
  • Erwin Chemerinsky
  • Robert Corn-Revere
  • Lucy Dalglish
  • Charles Haynes
  • Lee Levine
  • Michael McConnell
  • Paul McMasters
  • Martin Redish
  • Catherine Ross
  • Nadine Strossen
  • Laurence Tribe
  • Melvin Urofsky
  • Eugene Volokh
  • James Weinstein

Some of those attending the event: Jim Caruso, Susan Cohen, Anthony Dick, Lee Levine, Ronnie London, Tony Mauro, Robert M. O’Neil, Sigrid Fry-Revere, Catherine Ross, Ilya Shapiro, Mel Urofsky, and Lisa Zycherman.

img_5166

Campus “grievance culture” tested in S.C. case 

The case is Abbott v. Pastideswhich is currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina (Columbia Division). The current posture of the case concerns the Plaintiffs’ consolidated opposition to the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. The information set out below is from the Plaintiffs’ memorandum in support of their cross-motion.

University of South Carolina

  University of South Carolina

Facts: Here is how counsel for the petitioners summarized the facts: Plaintiffs in this case wanted to start a dialogue with their fellow students about the growing number of free speech controversies on American college campuses but learned the sad lesson that you can’t even talk about free speech these days without getting into trouble. They held a Free Speech Event at the University of South Carolina where they described recent cases in which freedom of expression had become a controversial issue. The event went well, but when a few students complained that they were offended and felt “triggered,” the University promptly began an investigation of the speakers, even though their event had been fully explained to USC officials and approved in advance.

University of South Carolina’s Student Non-Discrimination & Non-Harassment Policy (see here)

“Grievance culture” — “This case . . . illustrates how campus bureaucracies can favor grievance culture over the free exchange of ideas, and why structuring rules to nurture and encourage complaints about speech contributes to a mistaken belief by some that there is an American right not to be offended. Such misconceptions have been fostered by constitutionally unsound directives from the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education (“OCR”) and the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) that purport to establish a blueprint for regulating free expression on college campuses. USC unfortunately got entangled in this mindset and adopted policies to regulate student speech based on broad and nebulous terms using procedures that favor those who complain over the rights of speakers.”

Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Arguments

I. Defendants’ Investigation of the Free Speech Event Violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights in Ways that Preclude Qualified Immunity & Compel Judgment for Plaintiffs’

A.  Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights Are Clearly Establishes

B.  Forcing Plaintiffs to Justify Their Exercise of Free Speech and Threatening Sanctions Violated Their First  Amendment Rights

        1.  Defendants Misstate Controlling First Amendment Principles

        2.  Defendants’ Investigation Burdened Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Rights

II. USC’s Non-Discrimination & Non-Harassment Policy is Facially Invalid Because it is Vague, Overly Broad, & Fails to Incorporate Sufficient Safeguards for Free Expression

A. USC’s Non-Discrimination and Non-Harassment Policy (STAF 6.24) is Vague and Overly Broad

1. STAF 6.24 Restricts Speech Using Amorphous and Undefined Terms

2. The “Limiting Clause” of STAF 6.24 Cannot Rehabilitate a Constitutionally Defective Policy

3. USC’s Policy Fails to Implement the Required Constitutional Standard

 B. USC’s Reliance on DOJ and OCR Guidance is No Defense, & Instead Illustrates the Constitutional Deficiencies of its Policy

C. The Court Should Grant Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

→ Counsel for Plaintiffs: Robert Corn-Revere, Ronald London & Lisa Zycherman

Related Documents & Articles

Ross Abbott, Why I Sued the School, The Daily Gamecock, March 2, 2016

Complaint and Exhibits (additional documents from PacerMonitor here)

For a discussion of the case, see The Academy Uncensored: Abbott v. Pastides 

Read More

0

FAN 131 (First Amendment News) Forthcoming: Chemerinsky & Gillman on the importance of free speech on college campuses

It is one of the topics of our times — free speech on college campuses. As noted below, each week there are numerous news stories about this or that form of censorship endorsed by campus administrators. Now, two experts in the field of law and education have entered the marketplace of ideas in which this controversy continues.

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky

Enter Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Chancellor Howard Gillman with their next book: Free Speech on Campus (Yale University Press, summer 2017). Here is a draft of an excerpt from the preface to that book:

“Students are rightly demanding, and colleges and universities are striving to provide, greater diversity and an environment conducive to learning for all students. Often, though, these efforts have led to calls to restrict, punish, or disrupt speech by students and faculty members that is seen as creating a hostile learning environment, especially for those who have traditionally suffered discrimination. Some of this anger has been focused on speech that almost anyone would consider offensive and hateful. But there have also been calls to suppress speech that is merely politically controversial or contrarian. There are demands that campuses deal with “microaggressions” and require faculty to provide ‘trigger warnings’ before covering material that some students might find upsetting. Students have demanded—and received—formal investigations of possible violations of federal law after faculty members published scholarly articles in journals. The issues concerning speech on campus are complicated by the unprecedented ability for any person to quickly reach a large audience via social media. . . .”

Chancellor Howard Gillman

Chancellor Howard Gillman

“We fear that discussions over this issue, like so much else in society, are polarizing into two camps. One derides all efforts to protect students from the effects of offensive or disrespectful speech as ‘coddling’ and ‘political correctness.’ The other side believes that free speech rights are secondary to the need to protect the learning experience of students, especially minority students. “

“We write this book because we believe both sides are right and wrong. They are right in that both equality of educational opportunity and freedom of speech are essential for colleges and universities. But they are wrong in thinking that one of these objectives can be pursued to the exclusion of the other. Colleges and universities must both create inclusive learning environments for all students and protect freedom of speech. To achieve both of these goals, campuses may do many things, but they must not treat the expression of ideas as a threat to the learning environment. Freedom of expression and academic freedom are at the very core of the mission of colleges and universities, and limiting the expression of ideas would undermine the very learning environment that is central to higher education. . . . .”

There is more, much more, but I will stop there since the book is in the editing process. That said, the authors have kindly agreed to allow me to reprint a draft of the book’s table of contents:

Preface

Chapter 1:  The New Censorship

Chapter 2:  The Importance of Free Speech

Chapter 3:  The Special Role of Free Speech at Colleges and Universities

Chapter 4:  Hate Speech

Chapter 5:  Academic Freedom and Inclusive Learning Environments

Chapter 6:  What’s at Stake?

I will say more about this important book this coming summer when it is scheduled to be released.

Free Speech on College Campuses 

Heard on Campus: ‘The First Amendment and Diversity and Inclusion,’ Penn State News, Nov. 8, 2016 (video, participants: Robert D. Richards, Carla Pratt, Nancy J. LaMont, Stephen Ross, Victor Romero, & Maureen B. Cavanaugh

Susan Kruth, First Amendment Lawsuit Settled with Speech Code Revisions on 10 Arizona Campuses, FIRE, Nov. 8, 2016

Greg Piper, Satirical campus paper that was defunded because it offended people loses court battle, The College Fix, Nov. 8, 2016

Christina Hoff Sommers (credit: Aarushi Jain, Columbia Spectator)

Christina Hoff Sommers (see #10 below)
(credit: Aarushi Jain, Columbia Spectator)

  1. ASNE stands ready to defend First Amendment rights, strong democracy, iReach, Nov. 9, 2016
  2. Annalena Wolcke, A Brief Overview of “Freedom of Speech” on the University’s Campus, The Daily Princetonian, Nov. 9, 2016
  3. Sara Shepherd, National free speech group says KU is among schools with codes that ‘violate’ the First Amendment; University Senate free speech committee continues meeting, LJ World, Nov. 7, 2016
  4. Annika Cline, MCCCD Eliminates Free Speech Zones, Allowing Expression Everywhere On Campuses, KJZZ, Nov. 7, 2016
  5. Ray Stern, Free Speech Now Freer at Maricopa County Community College District, Phoenix Times, Nov. 7, 2016
  6. Van Nguyen, Conservative journalist Ben Shapiro criticizes campus censorship at YCT event, The Daily Texan, Nov. 4, 2016
  7. Cody Nelson, In campus free speech debate, nobody’s really winning, MPR News, Nov. 4, 2016
  8. D.C. McAllister, Free Speech Under Attack at Another College Campus, PJ Media, Nov. 3, 2016
  9. Pfeffer Merrill, Pro: Colleges must guard free speech, Evansville Couruer & Press, Nov. 3, 2016
  10. Cara Maines, Controversial feminist critic discusses trigger warnings, free speech amidst opposition on campus, Columbia Daily Spectator, Nov. 2, 2016
  11. A Public University Makes Students Choose Between Their First Amendment Rights & Graduation, Forbes, Nov. 2, 2016
  12. Lawrence Ross, Blackface on College Campuses Isn’t About Freedom of Speech; It’s About White Supremacy, The Root, Oct. 31, 2016
  13. Cliff Maloney, Jr., Colleges Have No Right to Limit Students’ Free Speech, Time, Oct. 13, 2016

Ballot Selfies: Colorado & California — Different Results   Read More

1

FAN 130 (First Amendment News) “Porn Panic” Prompts Pushback

There is nothing new about the assault on sexual content.  What is new is the rubric of public health concerns over sex trafficking and child safety to justify broad restrictions on sexual content, private censorship of sexual expression, and citing health and safety of sex workers to justify onerous restrictions on producers and performers.

That is how the Free Expression Network described a recent panel discussion it hosted, one titled  “The Assault on Sexual Expression.” The panel was part of an October 17, 2016 program held in Washington, D.C. It was moderated by Ricci Levy (President of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation); the panelists were Larry Walters (partner, Walters Law Group), David Horowitz (Executive Director, Media Coalition), and Joan Bertin (Executive Director, National Coalition Against Censorship).

Item: Do you remember the group named Morality in the Media? In keeping with the times, in 2015 the group changed its name to the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. The group’s mission: “Confronting sexual exploitation.” Apparently, morality has taken a backseat to concerns such as:

unknownConsider also this item from the Republican Platform for 2016: “The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography, which is closely linked to human trafficking.”

It all sounds so liberal, so modern, and so unobjectionable. Exit the old Anthony Comstock mindset, enter the new pro women, pro children, and pro health mindset. But just as the anti-pornography movement hoists its new flag,  opposition to it is mounting in psychological and legal quarters.

Enter Lawrence Walters  and Dr. Marty Klein — a seasoned First Amendment lawyer and certified sex therapist.

War on porn over?

First, Mr. Walters with these exclusive statements to FAN: “For decades, the “War on Porn” was justified on the grounds that viewing explicit material is immoral, and masturbation is a sin. As time passed, and erotica became mainstreamed, these hackneyed claims wore thin. Now, all the top celebrities have a sex tape, the Adult Video News Awards are broadcast on Showtime, and porn sites get more visitors than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter, combined. Moral acceptability of porn is rising, particularly among women who now make up 24% of the largest porn site users. The federal government has essentially given up on prosecuting obscenity prosecutions, with no new cases being filed since President Obama took office. In 2014, thinkprogress.com declared that the War on Porn was over, and the censors had lost.”

Larry Walters

Larry Walters

“The prior justifications for opposing sexually explicit media,” he added, “needed a 21st Century face lift if they were to survive. Thus was born the idea of porn as a ‘public health crisis.’ Health and fitness is all the rage, so the new battle cry had a nice ring to it. To give the campaign a boost, ‘experts’ began claiming that porn was also “addictive”, and generated harmful “erototoxins” that changed the chemical makeup of the brain. Naturally, Congress held hearings to explore this new flavor of porn panic.”

“One issue that unites virtually all lawmakers,” argues Mr. Walters, “is the fight against sex trafficking. In overwhelming majority votes, the House and Senate passed the controversial SAVE Act in 2015, imposing potential life imprisonment on anyone who advertises acts of sex trafficking. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has recently called upon the Justice Department to be more proactive in enforcing the law. Now sex trafficking is being used as another justification for the renewed War on Porn? A recent, comprehensive report funded by the DOJ concluded that pornography contributes to sex trafficking. The report, entitled; Identifying Effective Counter-Trafficking Programs and Practices in the U.S.: Legislative, Legal, and Public Opinion Strategies that Work, concludes that consumption of sexually explicit media ‘contributed to a more laisse-faire attitude toward [sex trafficking].'”

In sum, “labeling pornography as a public health crisis, addictive, and supportive of sex trafficking, fits the modern agenda. It’s a far cry from claiming that looking at nudie mags is immoral.”

Porn & anti-social behavior

51shpu5r-jl-_sx313_bo1204203200_Next, there is Dr. Marty Klein, author of a just-published book titled His Porn, Her Pain: Confronting America’s PornPanic with Honest Talk About Sex (Praeger, 2016). Here are a few items of interest from the book:

  • “Does porn lead to anti-social outcomes? Since free, high-quality porn flooded America 16 years ago, the rates of sexual violence, child molestation, and divorce [in the United States] have declined.”
  • “The overwhelming majority of Internet porn shows happy, smiling people enjoying playful, consensual sex.  Critics who focus only on the violent depictions on the fringe — which most people don’t watch — aren’t talking about porn, they’re using porn to talk about other things.”
  • “Women don’t have to compete with porn actresses any more than men have to compete with John Wayne, George Clooney, or Shia LaBeouf.  Remember, men aren’t relating to the women in porn, they’re relating to the characters the actresses play.”
  • “To say that porn demeans women is to deny the reality of some women’s passion, lust, and desire.  It’s to say that women never enjoy what men enjoy.  It’s to say that women don’t enjoy playing games with their sexuality, including power games.  It’s to say that women shouldn’t be who they are or enjoy who they are, but that they can only enjoy ‘authentic’ sexuality within limited (and historically stereotypical) bounds. This is not feminism.”

> > > See also Jerry Barnett, Porn Panic!: Sex and Censorship in the UK (Zero Books, August 26, 2016)

Next, enter Larry Walters, the First Amendment lawyer.

See also Jacob Gersen & Jeannie Suk, The Sex Bureaucracy, California Law Review (2016):

Professor Jeannie Suk

Professor Jeannie Suk

“We are living in a new sex bureaucracy. Saliently decriminalized in the past decades, sex has at the same time become accountable to bureaucracy. In this Article, we focus on higher education to tell the story of the sex bureaucracy. The story is about the steady expansion of regulatory concepts of sex discrimination and sexual violence to the point that the regulated domain comes to encompass ordinary sex. The mark of bureaucracy is procedure and organizational form. Over time, federal prohibitions against sex discrimination and sexual violence have been interpreted to require educational institutions to adopt particular procedures to respond, prevent, research, survey, inform, investigate, adjudicate, and train. . . . An object of our critique is the bureaucratic tendency to merge sexual violence and sexual harassment with ordinary sex, and thus to trivialize a very serious problem. We worry that the sex bureaucracy is counterproductive to the goal of actually addressing the harms of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment.”

* * * *

→ See also David Post, A setback for First Amendment protection for anonymous speech, The Volokh Conspiracy, Oct. 31, 2016 (“the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the provisions of the Illinois sex offender statute compelling disclosure of all “Internet identifiers” just a few weeks after the district court in Florida struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a virtually identical provision in the Florida statute.)

* * * *

→ Related items:

Ruthann Robson: Supreme Court Grants Cert. in First Amendment Rights of Sex Offenders to Access Social Media Read More