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.
SCOTUS Rules Against California Law In Free Speech Case
The Supreme Court sided with anti-abortion crisis centers and ruled that a California law requiring the centers to advertise state-funded services violated the facilities’ right to free speech. NIFLA v. […]
First Amendment Watch Roundtable: Ronald K.L. Collins 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 Ronald K.L. Collins’ response. We invite readers to join the discussion: send us your thoughts at fawroundtable@gmail.com.
First Amendment Watch Roundtable: Jane Bambauer 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 Jane Bambauer’s response. We invite readers to join the discussion: send us your thoughts at fawroundtable@gmail.com.
Reprinted with Permission From Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University In a landmark decision for the freedoms of speech and association as well as digital privacy, the Supreme Court […]
Heterodox Academy Hosts Inaugural Open Mind Conference
Heterodox Academy hosted its inaugural Open Mind Conference last week at TheTimesCenter in New York. Heterodox Academy is a membership association of professors whose mission is “to improve the quality […]
First Amendment Watch Roundtable: John Paul Schnapper-Casteras Responds to Louis Michael Seidman
In his provocative essay forthcoming in Columbia Law Review, Georgetown Law Professor Louis 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 John Paul Schnapper-Casteras’ response. We invite readers to join the discussion: send us your thoughts at fawroundtable@gmail.com.
BuzzFeed News Demands Access To Texas Detention Facility On First Amendment Grounds
BuzzFeed News sent a letter sent to the Chief Counsel of U.S. Customs and Border Protection requesting access to a centralized processing center in McAllen, Texas for a previously scheduled […]