What is fake news? Facebook and Google offer mea culpas for spreading it and hire legions of staff to counter it. Congress investigated how the Russians promoted it during the 2017 Presidential election. President Trump calls out "fake news"organizations in tweets several times a week. Has the term itself lost its meaning? A recent survey by the Freedom Forum Institute reveals many Americans believe fake news is a major threat, even over hate speech. What more can be done to separate fake news from facts?
Every year the First Amendment Center of the Freedom Forum Institute conducts the State of the First Amendment survey, which examines Americans’ views on freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition, and samples their opinions on contemporary First Amendment issues. The survey, conducted in partnership with Fors Marsh Group, an applied research company, has been published annually since 1997, reflecting Americans’ changing attitudes toward their core freedoms.
Gene Policinski Commentary: Five dead, more hurt at Annapolis newspaper – a sad, sad story
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on June 29, 2018, on the Newseum blog, and has given First Amendment Watch permission to reprint. Sad. […]
First Amendment Watch Thanks Our Nation’s Journalists
From Gene Policinski, president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. Five dead, more hurt at Annapolis newspaper – a sad, sad story Sad. So terribly sad. Five people – several after a life’s work reporting on the daily lives of others – are today the subjects of news reports no one wants to write, or read. On Thursday, police say, a man described as having a long-standing grudge against the Capital Gazette newspaper in Annapolis, Md., killed five staffers and injured several more in that small community newsroom. He shot through the glass doors of the paper into a place filled with journalists doing what most in that profession in America do: Bringing their community the news of itself.
First Amendment Watch Roundtable: Louis Michael Seidman Rejoinder
In his provocative essay forthcoming in Columbia Law Review, Georgetown Law Professor Michael Seidman writes, “Free speech cannot be progressive. At least it can’t be progressive if we are talking about free speech in the American context, with all the historical, sociological, and philosophical baggage that comes with the modern, American free speech right. … But the notion that our free speech tradition might be weaponized to advance progressive ends is fanciful.” Freedom of speech pushed progressive causes forward in the second half of the 20th century—it protected civil rights demonstrators, shielded artists from suppression, and safeguarded antiwar protestors. But is it less aligned with progressive goals now? After all, the First Amendment was used to invalidate some campaign financing regulations in Citizens United v. FEC, for example, and protects hate speech. We are devoting a First Amendment Roundtable to discuss Seidman’s question. Today, we present Louis Michael Seidman's rejoinder to our five First Amendment scholars. We invite readers to join the discussion: send us your thoughts at fawroundtable@gmail.com.
Free Speech Ruling Deals Blow To Labor Unions
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court justices struck down an Illinois law that required non-union workers to pay fees that go towards collective bargaining costs. Last summer, public sector […]
It’s Happy Hour Somewhere: Lawsuit Challenging Happy Hour Ad Restrictions Will Proceed
Chef Geoff Tracy can move ahead with his lawsuit against Virginia’s Alcoholic Control Board seeking to weaken happy hour advertisement rules in the state. Lawyers for the Attorney General’s […]
First Amendment Watch Roundtable: Richard Delgado Responds to Louis Michael Seidman
In his provocative essay forthcoming in Columbia Law Review, Georgetown Law Professor Michael Seidman writes, “Free speech cannot be progressive. At least it can’t be progressive if we are talking about free speech in the American context, with all the historical, sociological, and philosophical baggage that comes with the modern, American free speech right. … But the notion that our free speech tradition might be weaponized to advance progressive ends is fanciful.” Freedom of speech pushed progressive causes forward in the second half of the 20th century—it protected civil rights demonstrators, shielded artists from suppression, and safeguarded antiwar protestors. But is it less aligned with progressive goals now? After all, the First Amendment was used to invalidate some campaign financing regulations in Citizens United v. FEC, for example, and protects hate speech. We are devoting a First Amendment Roundtable to discuss Seidman’s question. Today, we present Richard Delgado’s response. We invite readers to join the discussion: send us your thoughts at fawroundtable@gmail.com.