Tagged: First Amendment

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.


 

1

FAN 157 (First Amendment News) Today: Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearing on campus free speech

“After a string of high-profile and sometimes violent instances of censorship this past school year, free speech on campus has become a pressing concern for many Americans,” said FIRE Legislative and Policy Director Joe Cohn. “We are pleased that the Senate Judiciary Committee is taking this issue seriously and hope this hearing will raise new awareness on Capitol Hill of the problems posed by campus censorship.”

Today, at 10:30 a.m. ET, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing titled:

The hearing will be live streamed on the committee’s website.

Presiding: Chairman Charles Grassley

Ranking Member: Dianne Feinstein

Those testifying are:

  1. Zachary R. Wood
  2. Frederick M. Lawrence
  3. Isaac Smith
  4. Fanta Aw
  5. Eugene Volokh
  6. Richard Cohen
  7. Floyd Abrams

STATEMENT OF FLOYD ABRAMS BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

June 20, 2017

Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Feinstein: I appreciate the opportunity to appear this morning to comment on the status – or, I could say, the sad state – of freedom of speech on college campuses around the nation.

About two years ago, I gave a speech in Philadelphia at Temple University in which I tried to answer the question of what the single greatest threat to free speech was in the nation. And where it was. I concluded then, as I do now, that the locale of the threat was on our college campuses and that the nature of the threat was nothing less than the suppression of free speech on our campuses. I pointed out, as I would today, that while our problems did not approach those in many other countries around the world, that they were serious, troubling, disturbing.

That is so notwithstanding ever-increasing focus on the problem, as illustrated by this significant hearing. Put plainly, the problem arises less because of a desire of university administrators to limit speech on campus – there is some of that, but it is not the dominant cause – than the conduct of a minority of students who will simply not tolerate the expression of views which they view as socially harmful or destructive.

A critic of recent speech-destructive behavior on campus has an overstuffed menu of choices to choose to discuss. Shall I focus on Evergreen, Middlebury or Berkeley? Or Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter? On the cancellation of previously made invitations to speakers such as Christine Lagarde, the first woman to head the IMF? Or the loud and strident interruptions to speakers – former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was one of many – to the point that the speech simply could not proceed?

Let me start instead with two examples. The President of California State University Los Angeles cancelled a speech by an editor of Breitbart, the conservative publication, who was about to speak on a topic that he had entitled as “When Diversity Becomes a Problem.” The explanation for the cancellation was—this one is worth saying slowly—“the need for free exchange of ideas.” According to the president of the university, the speaker could appear (but only appear) as part of a group of people with varying viewpoints on diversity. He could not speak alone, as left-wing speakers such as Cornel West and Angela Davis had spoken at CSU, with no request, let alone requirement, that the “other” side be heard simultaneously.

And, speaking of California, just yesterday (June 19th) a complaint was filed in federal court in San Francisco on behalf of Jewish students at San Francisco State University arising in part out of the misconduct of other students who effectively shut down a speech by the Mayor of Jerusalem by the use of amplified sound and loud and virulent anti-Semitic chants. The complaint sets forth in painful and exhaustive detail the disruption and the conscious decision of the university administration to order police to stand down and allow the shouting students to shut down the event and prevent the Mayor from delivering his scheduled speech, as well as the administration’s decision not to discipline any of the students, or the student group which prevented the speech from being delivered.

Thinking of just those examples, I couldn’t help but compare them to the time when I entered Cornell University more than a few years ago. At that time, upon entrance into the university, all students were required to sign some sort of document agreeing that we could be suspended for saying just about anything on just about any topic of which the university disapproved. In fact, we were required to carry at all times some sort of identification card saying just that. And as I recall it, there really was very little controversial speech at all on campus—a real loss, I can say in retrospect—but very much the ethos of life in America on and off campus in the long ago 1950s.

In fact, in those days, what was viewed as the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech on campus was the power that wealthy and politically regressive alumni sometimes exercised on some campuses. For an artistic look at that sort of danger, have a look at an old [1942] movie called “The Male Animal,” with Henry Fonda playing the role of a professor at risk of losing his position because he read a letter to his English class from Bartolomeo Vanzetti, an anarchist convicted—quite possibly unjustly—of murder in a most celebrated trial of the 1920s. Colleges were also under siege during the McCarthy era and many behaved badly, dismissing scholars for their supposed political views.

But today there are new censors – sometimes students, sometimes with outside support — who seek to place new limits on what may be said on campus. What can one say in response to this other than to quote from the statement of the American Association of University Professors that, in the clearest language, observed that “[o]n a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it well, when he was a Harvard undergraduate before the Civil War and was a student editor of Harvard Magazine. “We must,” he wrote in 1859, “have every thought brought before us when we are young, and we may as well at once prepare for it.”

The on-campus crisis is not limited to disinviting speakers. Wendy Kaminer, writing in the Washington Post, described a panel she was on at Smith College that dealt with freedom of speech. At one point, Smith’s President, Kathleen McCartney, had observed, tongue in cheek, “We’re just wild and crazy, aren’t we?” When a transcript was prepared, Kaminer writes, the word “crazy” was replaced by the words “[ableist slur.”] When one her fellow panelists mentioned that the State Department had, at one time, banned the words “jihad,” “Islamist” and “caliphate”, the transcript substituted the words [“anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language.”] I know this sounds more like a script for Saturday Night Live than on-campus reality, but it’s all real. As was the predictable reality that when Ms. Kaminer turned to Huckleberry Finn and discussed Huck’s savior and the book’s leading (and, by far, most attractive figure) by name—perhaps you can recall it– she was challenged by other panelists for doing so and later accused in the Huffington Post with committing “an explicit act of racial violence”.

The problem is not unique to our country. Just as the First Amendment, which applies only to the government and thus not privately funded institutions, and what I think of as the spirit of the First Amendment, which should be taken account of in all universities, has not sufficed to prevent such speech destructive activities here, the same has been true in other nations that pride themselves on the protection of free expression. The Observer has reported on one English university that banned supposedly “racist” sombreros and native American dress; and of another where a debate on abortion was cancelled by College Censors (that’s their official name) on the ground that they wanted to protect “students’ emotional wellbeing” by “avoiding unnecessary distress, particularly for any residents who may have had an abortion.”

This sort of thinking makes this an extraordinary perilous moment with respect to free speech on campuses. It sometimes seems as if too many students, even if they are no more than a vocal minority, seem to want to see and hear only views they already hold. And to prevent others from hearing views with which they differ. On one level, this is all perfectly understandable. Justice Holmes, to whom I referred earlier, in one of his most famous opinions, long ago observed that “[i]f you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” But natural as that response is, as Holmes later made clear, it is contrary to the core of the First Amendment that “free trade in ideas” be protected. Yet to avoid what the Oxford censors characterized as “unnecessary distress” we have seen speech stifled time and again on campuses in our country.

I don’t mean to suggest that there are no hard cases about what should be permitted on a campus and what not. Incitements to violence are no more protected by the First Amendment on campus than anywhere else. And as the University of Chicago advised the entering class of 2020 at the same time it eloquently defended free speech on campus, “freedom of expression does not mean the freedom to harass or threaten others.”

Nor should students be condemned for feeling and speaking passionately against what they perceive to be racist speech or conduct. Indeed it is important that student activism should generally be encouraged and protected, just as criticism of that activism should be protected, just as I wish we had had far more of all of it when I was in college and that I had participated in it. The absence of such speech was a loss to me, my generation and our nation.

Most campus activism in public universities is protected by First Amendment and in private universities by internal commitments by universities to abide by First Amendment norms. We need more students, not fewer, to become involved with the public issues of the day and on campuses. Their doing so is indispensable if society is to change for the better. If students disagree with the views of a speaker, they should engage with it, picket it, even walk out on it. I do not, in that respect, agree with the criticism voiced by Fareed Zakaria, among others, of students who peacefully walked out at Notre Dame when Vice President Pence was beginning a speech there. Doing so is not only one form of First Amendment protected conduct but a long-recognized and honored one. What is unacceptable is preventing speech from occurring, not protesting it.

Have students changed? Have their views? I have read a disturbing study, by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, based on surveying the views of over 141,000 full-time first year students at colleges around the country.

  • About 71% of them said that they agreed “strongly” or “somewhat” that “colleges should prohibit racist/sexist speech on campus”;
  • about 43% of them said that they agree “strongly” or “somewhat” that “colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers from campus”;
  • and only 64% said that they “strongly “or at least “somewhat” agree that “dissent is a critical component of the political process.”

Put another way, over a third of the entering students polled did not agree that dissent is a critical component of the political process.

Another study concluded that while only 12 percent of my generation (don’t ask what ages I’m talking about) think the government should be able to punish speech viewed as offensive by minority groups, around a 25% of the immediately succeeding generations thought so, and 40 percent of millennials (people 18-34) think so. I know you can read that in two ways. One is the optimistic way. The younger people are, the more unwilling they are to simply accept the existence of often outrageous, even destructive speech. The other way is to conclude that the younger a generation is, the less knowledgeable it is about (or, worse yet, unwilling to accept) the essence of the First Amendment. In that respect, another study concluded that nearly a third of college students could not identify the First Amendment as the one that even deals with freedom of speech. Maybe both are correct. But wouldn’t it be better if we all condemned racist or sexist speech but we all also knew and celebrated the freedom provided by the First Amendment, especially if we know what it says and what it means.

Of course, “extreme” speech is sometimes upsetting, sometimes painful to hear—if you choose to do so. Racist or sexist speech is harmful to the body politic and painful to those at whom it is aimed and those who listen to it. But the First Amendment is rooted in the notion that government (including the administrators of state universities) is not to be trusted to determine what is “extreme” speech, what is “sexist” speech, or the like. Or to punish it, even if they think they can define it. Former President Obama, I think, put it well when he said this: “I’ve heard of some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I’ve got to tell you, I don’t agree with that, either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view.”

A final note. I understand why any university leadership seeks to avoid any potential conflict on campus about speech that some students finds deeply offensive. Why would it not? What university administration would not seek to avoid such any such clash, especially since our nation still has so much to answer for with respect to its historic mistreatment of racial and other minorities? And at a time where serious steps must still be taken, on campus and off, to address ongoing manifestations of racism, sexism, anti-Semitism or the like.

But the answer to the suppression of almost any speech, the First Amendment answer, cannot be to limit expression but to discuss it, not to bar offensive speech but to answer it. Or to ignore it. Or to persuade the public to reject it. I know that’s easy to say but it’s got to be the way we respond to speech which we abhor. What is unacceptable is to suppress the speech. That is why I welcome this hearing the opportunity you have given me to participate in this hearing.

0

FAN 152 (First Amendment News) Gilbert Roe — Free Speech Lawyer is Subject of Forthcoming Book

Breaking News from the New York Times

“. . . Mr. Comey had been in the Oval Office that day with other senior national security officials for a terrorism threat briefing. When the meeting ended, Mr. Trump told those present — including Mr. Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions — to leave the room except for Mr. Comey.”

“Alone in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information, according to one of Mr. Comey’s associates.”

_______________________

Do not be bluffed on this subject of free speech. Remember that the first amendment of the Constitution stands.  I would say it with greater emphasis if I were a member of the forces of the [Wilson] Administration; for I want to say that if any administration in this country wants to seek trouble, it will find it along the line of denying the constitutional rights of free speech and free press. — Gilbert Roe (1917)

Indeed, [Gilbert] Roe provided the most trenchant and prescient of all criticisms of the Espionage bill by stressing the dangers of the intent requirement. — David Rabban

Gilbert Roe

By and large, First Amendment law is Supreme Court centric. That is, we equate the law, logic and history of freedom of speech with the names of Justices — Holmes, Brandeis, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Scalia, and Roberts. The lawyers behind the cases are all-too-frequently ignored . . . save, perhaps, for Floyd Abrams. But if one looks around the black robes and then turns the clock back, one name, among others, surfaces — Gilbert Roe (1864-1929).

Among other things, Gilbert Roe was the lawyer for the Free Speech League. He  knew and once worked with Louis Brandeis before the latter became a Justice. In 1917 Roe represented Max Eastman, the petitioner in Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (1917, per Hand., J.). Mr. Roe also argued the case on appeal to the Second Circuit (246 F. 24), which reversed Judge Hand’s opinion.

Before the Masses case Roe was Eastman’s lawyer in a criminal libel case. See People v. Eastman, 89 Misc. 596, 152 N.Y.S. 314 (N.Y., 1915). Before that Roe was the attorney for the petitioner in Fox v. State of Washington (1915). And in April of 1917, he testified before Congress against the Espionage Act.

In his amicus brief in Debs v. United States (1919) Roe, along with the attorney for the petitioner, challenged the Blackstonian interpretation of freedom of expression.

Once this Court says that public discussion of the measures of government can be punished because of any intent which a jury may find caused the discussion, or because of any result which a jury may think will follow such discussion, then the free speech and free press of the Constitution is destroyed. — Gilbert Roe, amicus brief in Debs v. United States (1919)

 Statement of Gilbert Roe, representing the Free Speech League, House Committee on the Judiciary (65th Congress), April 12, 1917 (re proposed bill “To Punish Acts of Interferference with the Foreign Relations, the Neutrality, and the Foreign Commerce of the United States”).

Gilbert Roe & Robert La Follett (credit: Wisconsin Historical Society)

Related

Gilbert Roe died in 1929.

* * * *

Beyond what Professor David Rabban wrote in his seminal Free Speech in its Forgotten Years (1999) and Mark Graber in his Transforming Free Speech (1991), this January Gilbert Roe will be the object of a full-length biography by Professor Eric B. Easton.

The book, to be published by the University of Wisconsin Press, is titled Defending the Masses: A Progressive Lawyer’s Battles for Free SpeechHere is the abstract:

“Free speech and freedom of the press were often suppressed amid the social turbulence of the Progressive Era and World War I. As muckrakers, feminists, pacifists, anarchists, socialists, and communists were arrested or censored for their outspoken views, many of them turned to a Manhattan lawyer named Gilbert Roe to keep them in business and out of jail.”

“Roe was the principal trial lawyer of the Free Speech League—a precursor of the American Civil Liberties Union. His cases involved such activists as Emma Goldman, Lincoln Steffens, Margaret Sanger, Max Eastman, Upton Sinclair, John Reed, and Eugene Debs, as well as the socialist magazine The Masses and the New York City Teachers Union. A friend of Wisconsin’s progressive senator Robert La Follette since their law partnership as young men, Roe defended ‘Fighting Bob’ when the Senate tried to expel him for opposing America’s entry into World War I.”

“In articulating and upholding Americans’ fundamental right to free expression against charges of obscenity, libel, espionage, sedition, or conspiracy during turbulent times, Roe was rarely successful in the courts. But his battles illuminate the evolution of free speech doctrine and practice in an era when it was under heavy assault. His greatest victory, including the 1917 decision by Judge Learned Hand in The Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, is still influential today.”

Prof. Eric Easton

How the book came about: “I was looking to write something about Masses Publ. Co. v. Patten, but couldn’t find an approach that hadn’t already been done . . . and done well.  I decided to look at the human side of the case. Again, I found Hand and Eastman well covered (and Patten not terribly interesting).  But Roe seemed like a possibility, although I didn’t know who he was. Brief mentions of him in books I had read (Rabban, Graber) hadn’t really registered with me.

“I wrote to the University of Wisconsin Law Library, among others, to see if they might have some of Roe’s papers, and a librarian there sent me a Westlaw printout of Roe’s published cases (something I could have done myself, but didn’t). My interest was really piqued when I saw some familiar names as parties. When I read the cases, I knew I had something, and plunged into his papers (with La Follette’s in the Library of Congress) and his wife’s (at the Wisconsin Historical Society).”

“What followed was the most enjoyable scholarly experience of my career:  a new discovery nearly every day, a fascinating cast of characters, and a true unsung hero in the evolution of American freedom of speech.  I only hope I have done him justice.” [Source: e-mail to RKLC]

Professor Easton will present a paper at the October Masses conference at New York University Law School. His paper is entitled: “The Role of Gilbert Roe, the Masses attorney.”

Cert. Petition filed in Right to Assembly Protest Case Read More

4

FAN 136.1 (First Amendment News) Nat Hentoff, First Amendment Champion, Dies

Sad to report the death of my father tonight at the age of 91. He died surrounded by family listening to Billie Holiday. — Nick Hentoff

Seattle. He was a friend, an inspiration, and someone who led the kind of life that so many long to live but are afraid to do so. When Ira Glasser shared the news, I left a party and went back to a quiet place to listen to Miles Davis’ Blue in Green . . . and then I turned off the lights and just sat and thought of Nat.

Perhaps no person better embodied the spirit of the First Amend — robust, rebellious, free-flyin’ and straight-talking — than Nat Hentoff (1925-2017) (AP obit here)

Fuse the life spirit of Lenny Bruce together with that of the early Bob Dylan and add a dollop of Miles Davis’ jazz and Allen Ginsberg’s poetry and you’ll get a sense of Hentoff’s persona. There was also a Tom Paine quality about him — feisty in his defense of freedom, no matter how unpopular it made him. Some liberals loved him, some conservatives admired him, and some libertarians applauded him — but very few came along for the full Hentoff monty. And that’s the way he liked it! If you have an open mind and a tolerant side, you had to love the guy . . . if only at a First Amendment distance.

If any of this strikes a chord in your free-speech consciousness, then check out the 2013 documentary on Nat — The Pleasures of Being out of Step, directed by David L. Lewis. Here is a description of the documentary:

Pleasures profiles legendary jazz writer and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, whose career tracks the greatest cultural and political movements of the last 65 years. The film is about an idea as well as a man – the idea of free expression as the defining characteristic of the individual. . . . Pleasures wraps the themes of liberty and identity around a historical narrative that stretches from the Great Depression to the Patriot Act. Brought to life by actor Andre Braugher, the narration doesn’t tell the story – it is the story, consisting entirely of writings by Hentoff and some of his subjects. With a potent mix of interviews, archival footage, photographs and music, the film employs a complex non-linear structure to engage the audience in a life of independent ideas and the creation of an enduring voice.

At the core of the film are three extraordinarily intimate interviews with Hentoff, shot by award-winning cinematographer Tom Hurwitz. The film also includes interviews with Floyd Abrams, Amiri Baraka, Stanley Crouch, Dan Morgenstern, Aryeh Neier, Karen Durbin, Margot Hentoff and John Gennari, among others. It features music by Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan and Charles Mingus, and never-before seen photographs of these artists and other cultural figures at the height of their powers.

 Here is the trailer.

 Here is the bookThe Pleasures of Being Out of Step: Nat Hentoff’s Life in Journalism, Jazz and the First Amendment.

Nat Hentoff on Bill Buckley's Firing Line

   Hentoff on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line

Hentoff Books

Some of Nat’s books on free speech and related topics include the following:

See also Ronald Collins & David Skover, The Trials of Lenny Bruce (2002) (cd narrated by Nat Hentoff)

Video clips

       Hentoff & Allen Ginsberg on Charlie Rose (1995)

 Nat Hentoff on Free Speech,Jazs, & FIRE (this is precious!)

 See and hear the man himself on this Brian Lamb, C-SPAN interview with Nat (go here).

 And go here, too, for Richard Heffner’s Open Mind interview with Nat.  (See also here for a Cato Interview)

 One more — this, too, is precious: The young Nat debating the young Bill Buckley on Firing Line.

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

0

FAN 128.1 (First Amendment News) Tribe & others form pro bono phalanx to defend against Trump’s threatened defamation lawsuits

It is about time that the use of lawsuit threats by a bully, like Trump, should be met, and met strongly. — Laurence Tribe 

Theodore Boutrous, Jr.

Theodore Boutrous, Jr.

It all began with Theodore Boutrous, Jr. According to Law Newz, “on October 13, Boutrous sent out a tweet promising to a pro bono defense to the Palm Beach Post newspaper after it published a story from one of Trump’s alleged accusers.” And then on October 22, he tweeted: “I repeat: I will represent pro bono anyone  sues for exercising their free speech rights. Many other lawyers have offered to join me.”

Shortly afterwards one of those who offered to form pro bono phalanx to defend against Trump’s threatened defamation lawsuits was  Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe.

Professor Laurence Tribe

Professor Laurence Tribe

Last evening Professor Tribe appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC). Tribe was on the program to talk about recent threats by Donald Trump to sue his sexual misconduct accusers: “All of these liars will be sued once the election is over,” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. “I look so forward to doing that.” (video here)

Here are some transcribed excerpts from Professor Tribe’s comments in response to that threat:

Offer of pro bono assistance

“Ted Boutrous and Ben Wittes, and many other leading lawyers, have [offered to represent pro bono those alleging sexual misconduct against Donald Trump]. And I did it because it is about time that the use of lawsuit threats by a bully, like Trump, should be met – and met strongly – because a lot of people, a lot of women, might be deterred by his threats even though he often doesn’t carry them out. They might be afraid to come forward; it’s not only them, it’s all kinds of groups. A group that I am also ready to defend pro bono, although it may sound a little bit strange, is the American Bar Association, which was frightened into suppressing its own report by a free-speech watchdog group, which concluded that Trump used the threats of libel suits to bully people into submission. And they ended up censoring themselves because they were afraid of being sued.” [See Adam Liptak, Fearing Trump, Bar Association Stifles Report Calling Him a ‘Libel Bully’, New York Times, Oct. 24, 2016; see also Susan E. Seager, Donald J. Trump Is A Libel Bully But Also A Libel Loser, Media Law Resource Center, Oct. 21, 2016]

“It’s really about time that people who know what they are talking about in the law tell this guy what an idiot he is and how unfair it is for him to use his power. . . . He says that he can just sue the hell out of anybody. [But] he’s gonna learn better than that when he tries. . . . “

“[T]he women who are afraid to come forward should know that lawyers like me are going to be willing to defend them and the journalists who reported their stories without charge. . . .”

Possible defamation suits against Trump

“All of the people [Trump] threatens to sue, without any real ground and in the face of the First Amendment, have strong grounds to sue him for deliberately and falsely labeling them as liars and as people who simply want – I think he called it — their ten minutes of fame . . . .”

Course of action if Trump wins

“Justice Brennan in a case called Garrison, pointed out that the way the Nazis, early in their rise to power, silenced their enemies and their opposition was to threating to use defamation lawsuits against them. But I do want to want to add, quite apart from these lawsuits, if Trump loses (as I hope he will) we won’t have to take the next step. But if he should happen to win (heaven forbid!) . . . then lawyers around the country, who are joining me in this effort, are going to do all we can, pro bono, to prevent him from abusing executive power by violating the First Amendment and much else in the Constitution. Because if he wins, he’s likely to take a Congress with him; he’s not likely to have the usual checks-and-balances. So, the legal profession has a challenge that I hope it can meet. I think that people who are lawyers . . . , in the best sense of the word, need to step up and call this tyrant for what he is.”

Coming: Tomorrow’s FAN post is titled: “A 10-year chronology: Trump’s lawsuits & threatened ones involving freedom of speech & press”

0

FAN 126.1 (First Amendment News) Court denies cert in “public official” defamation case

The question presented in Armstrong v. Thompson was “whether all (or nearly all) law enforcement offic- ers are “public officials” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).” Today the Court denied cert. in that case.

In his petition to the Court, Roy T. Englert, Jr. argued:

This case presents a recurring First Amendment question: whether a garden-variety law enforcement officer, with little or no role in setting public policy, must establish “actual malice” to recover for harm caused by tortious statements. A number of Circuits and state courts of last resort—where many issues relating to the First Amendment and defamation are decided—have held that every law enforcement officer is a “public official” under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). Accordingly, those courts, including the court below, require each and every law enforcement officer to show “actual malice” before recovering for any tort carried out through speech. In this case, despite an otherwise-error-free trial resulting in a jury verdict establishing that re-spondent had committed an established common-law tort, the court of appeals joined those courts and reversed on federal constitutional grounds after determining that Armstrong was a public official and that he had failed to prove “actual malice.” App. 14a-21a.

This Court should grant review. The rule applied below conflicts with decisions in other lower courts; “distort[s] the plain meaning of the ‘public official’ category beyond all recognition,” Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974); and deprives hundreds of thousands of individuals of the ability to obtain redress for needless, vendetta-driven attacks on their reputations and interference with their livelihoods.

1

FAN 124 (First Amendment News) Ellen DeGeneres raises First Amendment defense in defamation case

Under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and under well-established Georgia law, courts have consistently recognized that humor, parody, name-calling and other forms of ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ are simply not actionable as defamation or under any other legal theory. — Thomas Clyde, Warner Bros. lawyer (Sept. 16, 2016)

Thomas Clyde

Thomas Clyde

Thomas M. Clyde is a partner at the Atlanta, Georgia law firm of Kilpatrick Townsend. He has has “extensive experience in defending publishers, broadcasters and other information providers against claims alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, infringement of intellectual property rights and newsgathering misconduct. . . . Mr. Clyde was recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for First Amendment Litigation in 2017 and the four years immediately preceding. He was also named a 2017 ‘Atlanta Lawyer of the Year’ in the area of First Amendment Law by The Best Lawyers in America. Mr. Clyde was recognized as a Georgia ‘Super Lawyer’ for First Amendment, Media and Advertising Law in 2012 and 2013, for Constitutional Law in 2014, and again for Media and Advertising Law in 2015 and 2016 by Super Lawyers magazine.” He is also the past co-chair of the Media Law Letter Committee of the Media Law Resource Center.

Now his First Amendment expertise is being summoned to defend TV comedian and talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres who is being sued for defamation. Here is how it happened: Seems that on one of her national TV shows Ms. DeGeneres referred to Ms. Titi (pronounced ‘TEE TEE) Pierce as “Titty Pierce.”

According to LawNewz,  “[d]uring a segment of her daily talk show called, ‘What’s Wrong with These Signs? Ellen showed a photograph of a real estate sign advertising broker Titi Pierce, and pronouncing the name ‘titty’ instead of the phonetic ‘tee-tee.’ Ellen made the ‘Titty’ wisecrack right after showing a sign that read ‘Nipple Convalescent Home,’ and continued to joke, “Titty Pierce, sounds like she might have spent some time in that nipple home, I don’t know.’

 “It was all in good fun,” reported Elura Nanos, “until Ms. Pierce’s phone blew up with harassing calls and messages. And to make matters worse, she was on her way to a family funeral. Comedic timing really is everything.” In light of that, on “Ms. Pierce filed a lawsuit in Georgia Federal Court against  DeGeneres, alleging Invasion of Privacy, Misappropriation of Likeness, Defamation, and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.”

As Mr. Clyde sees it, “This was silly, lighthearted fun,” and nothing more. Even so, his response to the complaint raised a First Amendment defense.

The Plaintiff is being represented by Stacey Godfrey Evans.

See video clip, courtesy of LawNewz, here.

Copy of Complaint here.

Katie Couric, film company & distributor sued for defamation

Katie Couric

Katie Couric

This from Larry Iser writing in Forbes: “Back in May, Katie Couric faced a heap of controversy over an edited scene in the 2016 documentary Under the Gun. This week, Couric, along with the documentary’s director Stephanie Soechtig, Soechtig’s company Atlas Film LLC and the film’s distributor Epix were named defendants in a $12 million defamation lawsuit filed by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), a gun rights activist group appearing in the documentary, and two of its members, licensed firearms dealer Patricia Webb and Daniel Hawes, a firearms and personal defense litigator. Couric is the narrator and an executive producer of Under the Gun. According to the complaint, Couric’s interviews of VCDL members were heavily edited and portrayed them in a false light.At one point in the documentary, Couric asks members of the group, ‘If there are no background checks for gun purchasers, how do you prevent felons or terrorists from purchasing a gun?”The film portrays the activists as speechless and apparently unable to answer the question for about eight or nine seconds. However, the complaint alleges that audio tapes prove that the activists had, in fact, provided an immediate, substantive six-minute response to Couric’s query. . . .'”

Larry Iser (the author of the Forbes piece) is a litigator at Kinsella Weitzman Iser Kump & Aldisert. He frequently litgates defamation and intellectual property disputes, and has represented music artists including The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Jackson Browne.

→ See also Bob Ownes, Katie Couric Sued for $12 Million For Defamation In Anti-Gun Documentary, Bearing Arms, September 13, 2016

Headline: “Some defendants dismissed in BPI-ABC defamation case”

In an article by Nick Hytrek, writing in the Sioux City Journal, it was reported that “in the wake of the dismissal of five defendants in Beef Products Inc.’s $1.2 billion defamation lawsuit against ABC, court officials believe they do not need to move the trial out of the Union County Courthouse.The dismissal means fewer lawyers will be present at the trial, scheduled for June 5, and courthouse facilities should be adequate after some minor modifications, said Kim Allison, First Circuit court administrator. . . .”

unknown“In August, lawyers filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss ABC News, David Kerley, Gerald Zirnstein, Carl Custer and Kit Foshee as defendants in the lawsuit. The suit will now focus on what BPI’s attorney said are the three main defendants: American Broadcasting Companies Inc., former ‘World News Tonight’ anchor Diane Sawyer and news correspondent Jim Avila.’

“Circuit Judge Cheryle Gering entered an order dismissing the defendants on Aug. 24.”

“‘BPI’s decision to dismiss some of the other defendants does not release the primary targets of the litigation, nor does it have anything to do with the merits of our case,’ BPI attorney, Erik Connolly, of Chicago, said in a written statement. . . .”

“BPI sued ABC, its correspondents, federal officials and a former employee in September 2012 in Union County Circuit Court and will attempt to prove that a series of stories and broadcasts that began in early March 2012 defamed the company’s Lean Finely Textured Beef. . . .”

Headline: “Anti-Defamation League Boosting Presence In Silicon Valley” Read More

1

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

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

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

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

Change in the Court: New Opportunities & Challenges 

Professor David Cole

Professor David Cole

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

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

Incremental Steps: The Slow March to Victory

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

Start with the States

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

The Role of Scholarship

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

Related Articles by David Cole

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

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

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

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

Proposed Federal Law Would Ban Revenge Porn Read More

0

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

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

____________________

IMG_4829

(credit: NYT)

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

Recent & Related 

bbc-blocks-dark

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

Unknown

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

Unknown

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

Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, & Kitty Bruce

        Kelly Carlin, Rain Pryor, & Kitty Bruce

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

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

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

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

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