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.
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.
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 […]
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.