Almost immediately, a fresh front was opened in the perpetual war between free speech and outrage.
John Dickinson once said in defense of rhetoric that “All the law of Coke and the eloquence of Cicero can never influence men who don’t understand you.” And then there’s Milo…
The problem with being prejudiced against prejudice.
Yet another college free-speech case has led me to the conclusion that we just don’t want a dialogue on anything of substance.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Test Clause predictably collide with Obergefell v. Hodges in Eastern Kentucky.
What happens when a fraternal organization, dedicated to commemorating Confederate veterans of the U.S. Civil War, declares “all in” before the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case where there appear to be two directly controlling yet contradictory cases and the ideological alignments of the Justices are apparently inverted? Burt Likko breaks down today’s license plate case.
James Hanley critiques the “good judgement” pseudo-defense of free speech.
It’s suddenly very fashionable to be a strident advocate of free speech, without giving a lot of thought into why free speech is worthy of advocacy. Burt Likko dares to offer five reasons, which surely won’t be controversial at all.
James Hanley reacts to reports of an academic using a rather strong word about Republicans.
There’s never been a better time to say things no one objects to.
Same cast, brand new season! Burt Likko offers a look at some of the high points of the Supreme Court’s docket for the 2014-2015 Term.
James Hanley civilly argues that Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks is not wrong to encourage civility, but he is dangerously wrong to elevate civility above freedom of speech.
It’s the close of the term, and here’s a recap of the major cases from SCOTUS this year. Some surprising results. Some, not so much. Alsotoo: we’re waiting until Monday for the Hobby Lobby and Harris decisions.
Burt Likko thinks that Citizens United and McCutcheon were correctly decided. But how can he square that conclusion with his recent Ordinary Court opinion?
When I read this article by Mark Adomanis in Forbes online, I find myself a bit confused. Adomanis mantains that there is a significant strain of American conservatism that looks at l’affaire d’Pussy Riot in Russia and doesn’t get past the fact that the underlying offense occurred in a church. For that reason, while Vladimir Putin and the…
Three of the members of Russian punk rock collective Pussy Riot have been found guilty of “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred” and sentenced to two years of labor in a corrective institution, with credit for five months time already served. Judge Marina Syrova called their offence a “serious crime.” “It is simply idiocy,” said a…
I have a primer up at Forbes on a little known trade agreement, ACTA, which does all the bad stuff that SOPA threatened to do, only worse. Masked as an anti-counterfeiting treaty, ACTA threatens freedom of speech online and sets up elaborate and invasive means of clamping down on file sharing, generic drugs, and reinforcing…
Here’s a provocative post from Stanley Fish: To anyone who has been following First Amendment jurisprudence in the past 40 or 50 years, the recent Supreme Court decision (United States v. Stevens, April 20) striking down a statute criminalizing the production and sale of videos depicting animal cruelty in a manner intended to satisfy a…
A frightening article from Reason on campus free speech restrictions.
Via Doug Mataconis, Andrew Coulson finds yet another one of those “little incidents” that add up to a pattern of choosing politics over respect for freedoms:
Transplanted Lawyer has the first – and thus far, only – truly sane take I’ve seen on the matter. I was thinking about writing a post on this subject, but T.L.’s post says all that really should or can be said. Say what you will about Fox News, but it is simply not the position,…