• Eugene Volokh: A Nationwide Speech Code for Lawyers?
    Articles,  Blog

    Eugene Volokh: A Nationwide Speech Code for Lawyers?

    The American Bar Association has recently proposed a new rule that would basically be a nationwide speech code for lawyers. It explicitly made clear that the speech code would apply not just operations in courtroom, or in depositions, or in interactions with clients or opposing counsel, but also in professional activities including Bar Association activities and social activities related to the practice of law. So, uh, if, um, a, a lawyer’s group puts on a debate about same-sex marriage, or about, uh, a discrimination based on gender identity, or about, uh, immigration from Muslim countries or about illegal immigration, uh, and, uh, somebody expresses a view in the process that…

  • Articles

    Irina Manta: Privacy v. Freedom of the Press

    The topic of the panel was the conflict that we have to some extent between our desire as a society to protect privacy, uh, but also to have a free press. And so, one of key questions we were answering is whether we should have more regulations in the age of new sites, such as Gawker, and others. The concern, uh, that people have, uh, is that we are going to either allow for people’s privacy to be violated, and for certain details about their lives to be disclosed on the internet forever and that they can never get rid of, and can never repair. Or on the other hand,…

  • Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky [SCOTUSbrief]
    Articles,  Blog

    Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky [SCOTUSbrief]

    Andy Cilek, in 2010, went to vote in Minnesota wearing a tea party t-shirt. He was twice stopped by a poll worker from voting, and on the third try he was finally allowed to vote but his name and address was taken down for potential prosecution. He filed a First Amendment lawsuit against Joe Mansky and other government officials in Minnesota alleging that Minnesota’s broad ban on all political apparel at the polling place violates the First Amendment. The law at issue in this case is Minnesota Section 211 B.11 which prohibits voters from wearing any political badge, button, or other insignia at the polling place. Minnesota promulgated an election…

  • Twitter admits error in ‘shadow banning’ journalist
    Articles,  Blog

    Twitter admits error in ‘shadow banning’ journalist

    NEIL: TWITTER IS AT IT AGAIN WITH SOME SYNCING CENSORSHIP IN A CLEVER WAY SEAN DAVIS TREATING THAT AS TRANSCRIPT FIGHT ANTI-TRUMP LAWYER LISA PAGE, BUT THE TWEETS ARE ONLY VISIBLE TO HIM. NOT ANY OF HIS FOLLOWERS. IN OTHER WORDS IT IS LIKE SPEAKING TO A VACUUM. OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN UNAWARE OF THAT. WE REACHED OUT TO TWITTER INSTEAD REINFORCE REGARDLESS OF THEIR BACKGROUND AND AFFILIATION TO SEAN DAVIS HIMSELF. HOW DID YOU PICK UP ON THIS?>>I PICKED UP IT BY RANDOM CHANCE. I GLANCED AT MY TIMELINE AND REALISTIC PORTION OF TESTIMONY FROM LISA PAGE TESTIMONY BEFORE CONGRESS WAS NOT GETTING ENGAGEMENT. I OPENED UP THE…

  • Texas v. Johnson Summary | quimbee.com
    Articles,  Blog

    Texas v. Johnson Summary | quimbee.com

    – [Narrator] The First Amendment protects free speech, including expressive conduct. But does it shield someone burning the American flag in protest? In Texas versus Johnson, the United State Supreme Court answered that question. In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson participated in a protest of the Republican National Convention. Outside the Dallas City Hall, Johnson doused an American flag with kerosene and set it on fire. As the flag burned, protesters chanted quote, “America the red, white, and blue, “we spit on you,” unquote. Johnson was charged with desecration of a venerated object under Texas law. The trial court convicted Johnson, fining him $2,000 and sentencing him to one year in…

  • Do You Understand the First Amendment? Presented By Will Witt.
    Articles,  Blog

    Do You Understand the First Amendment? Presented By Will Witt.

    Do you like being able to speak your mind freely or practice whatever religion you want? People in America take these rights for granted, but these rights only exist because of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peacefully [sic] to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. America is the most free and most prosperous country in the world. But why is America different and why should we…

  • Interpreting the Bill of Rights
    Articles,  Blog

    Interpreting the Bill of Rights

    IN “DEMOCRACY’S DISCONTENT,” I BEGIN WITH THE CONTRAST BETWEEN TWO POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES, ONE LIBERAL, THE OTHER REPUBLICAN. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIBERAL AND THE REPUBLICAN PUBLIC PHILOSOPHIES LIES IN THE CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM AND OF CITIZENSHIP THAT THEY AFFIRM, AND THE LIBERAL CONCEPTION TO BE FREE, TO BE A FREE CITIZEN, IS TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE MY OWN ENDS, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE, CONSISTENT WITH RESPECTING A SIMILAR LIBERTY FOR OTHERS. IN THE REPUBLICAN CONCEPTION, FREEDOM IS A MORE DEMANDING NOTION. TO BE FREE IS TO SHARE IN SELF RULE, TO PARTICIPATE IN SELF GOVERNMENT. NOT JUST TO GO AND VOTE EVERY TWO YEARS OR FOUR YEARS, BUT…

  • Janus v. AFSCME: Union Fees & the First Amendment [SCOTUSbrief]
    Articles,  Blog

    Janus v. AFSCME: Union Fees & the First Amendment [SCOTUSbrief]

    The issue in this case are whether public sector union fees are constitutional. The parties to this case are Mark Janus, Child Support Specialist Employed by the State of Illinois, and the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 31, otherwise known as AFSCME Council 31, as well as various departments of the state of Illinois. AFSCME, it’s function is to bargain with the state of Illinois over Illinois’s policies that affect employees. And the theory of the case basically stated is that it offends the First Amendment to force an employee to support union speech that he or she does not support. To understand the case in…

  • Can the President Block You on Twitter? [POLICYbrief]
    Articles,  Blog

    Can the President Block You on Twitter? [POLICYbrief]

    With President Trump, there’s a tweet for everything. For the last seven or eight years, he has been tweeting on every conceivable issue that confronts us. This was not much of an issue before he was a politician. As a private citizen, he could say whatever he wants on Twitter and he can block whomever he wants, and it really creates no problems. However, if official capacity Trump, the president of the United States on a government account, blocks people, that does implicate the First Amendment and that’s the basis of the lawsuit being litigated now in New York. The seven plaintiffs in the litigation claim that they were blocked…

  • Why the First Amendment is America in a nutshell | Monica Duffy Toft
    Articles,  Blog

    Why the First Amendment is America in a nutshell | Monica Duffy Toft

    So I’ve been asked to choose an amendment that I think is important and valuable, and so I think: the First Amendment. And it’s not only because it’s the First Amendment, it’s what it says. And it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” And I think from the Constitution this sets up the rest of the Constitution about what it means to be an American citizen and the value of…