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.

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.