Tagged: First Amendment law

Posner
6

On Privacy, Free Speech, & Related Matters – Richard Posner vs David Cole & Others

I’m exaggerating a little, but I think privacy is primarily wanted by people because they want to conceal information to fool others. Richard Posner

Privacy is overratedRichard Posner (2013)

 Much of what passes for the name of privacy is really just trying to conceal the disreputable parts of your conduct. Privacy is mainly about trying to improve your social and business opportunities by concealing the sorts of bad activities that would cause other people not to want to deal with you.Richard Posner (2014)

This is the seventh installment in the “Posner on Posner” series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, the fifth here, and the sixth one here.

Privacy has been on Richard Posner’s mind for more than three-and-a-half decades. His views, as evidenced by the epigraph quotes above, have sparked debate in a variety of quarters, both academic and policy. In some ways those views seem oddly consistent with his persona – on the one hand, he is a very public man as revealed by his many writings, while on the other hand, he is a very private man about whom we know little of his life outside of the law save for a New Yorker piece on him thirteen years ago.

On the scholarly side of the privacy divide, his writings include:

  1. The Right of Privacy,” 12 Georgia Law Review 393 (1978)
  2. Privacy, Secrecy, and Reputation,” 28 Buffalo Law Review 1 (1979)
  3. The Uncertain Protection of Privacy by the Supreme Court,” 1979 Supreme Court Review 173
  4. The Economics of Privacy,” 71 The American Economic Review 405 (1981)
  5. Privacy,” Big Think (video clip, nd)
  6. Privacy is Overrated,” New York Daily News, April 28, 2014

For a sampling of Judge Posner’s opinion on privacy, go here (and search Privacy)

(Note: Some links will only open in Firefox or Chrome.)

_____________________

Privacy – “What’s the big deal?”

Privacy interests should really have very little weight when you’re talking about national security. The world is in an extremely turbulent state – very dangerous. — Richard Posner (2014)

Recently, Georgetown Law Center held a conference entitled “Cybercrime 2020: The Future of Online Crime and Investigations” (full C-SPAN video here). In the course of that event, Judge Posner joined with others in government, private industry, and in the legal academy to discuss privacy, the Fourth Amendment, and free speech, among other things. A portion of the exchange between Judge Posner and Georgetown law professor David Cole was captured on video.

Judge Richard Posner

Judge Richard Posner

Scene: The Judge sitting in his office, speaking into a video conference camera — As he rubbed his fingers across the page and looked down, Posner began: “I was thinking, listening to Professor Cole, what exactly is the information that he’s worried about?” Posner paused, as if to setup his next point: “I have a cell phone – iPhone 6 – so if someone drained my cell phone, they would find a picture of my cat [laughter], some phone numbers, some e-mail addresses, some e-mail texts – so what’s the big deal?”

He then glanced up from the text he appeared to be reading and spoke with a grin: “Other people must have really exciting stuff. [laughter] Could they narrate their adulteries or something like that?” [laughter] He then waved his hands in the air before posing a question to the Georgetown Professor.

“What is it that you’re worrying about?” Posner asked as if truly puzzled.

At that point, Cole leaned into his microphone and looked up at the video screen bearing the Judge’s image next to case reports on his left and the American flag on his right.

Cole: “That’s a great question, Judge Posner.”

Professor Cole continued, adding his own humor to the mix: “And I, like you, have only pictures of cats on my phone. [laughter] And I’m not worried about anything from myself, but I’m worried for others.”

On a more substantive note, Cole added: “Your question, which goes back to your original statement, . . . value[s] . . . privacy unless you have something to hide. That is a very, very shortsighted way of thinking about the value [of privacy]. I agree with Michael Dreeben: Privacy is critical to a democracy; it is critical to political freedom; [and] it is critical to intimacy.”

The sex video hypothetical

And then with a sparkle in his spectacled eye, Cole stated: “Your question brings to mind a cartoon that was in the New Yorker, just in the last couple of issues, where a couple is sitting in bed and they have video surveillance cameras over each one of them trained down on the bed [Cole holds his hands above his head to illustrate the peering cameras]. And the wife says to the husband: ‘What are you worried about if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.’”

Using the cartoon as his conceptual springboard, Cole moved on to his main point: “It seems to me that all of us, whether we are engaged in entirely cat-loving behavior, or whether we are going to psychiatrists, or abortion providers, or rape crises centers, or Alcoholics Anonymous, or have an affair – all of us have something to hide. Even if you don’t have anything to hide, if you live a life that could be entirely transparent to the rest of the world, I still think the value of that life would be significantly diminished if it had to be transparent.”

Without missing a beat, Cole circled back to his video theme: “Again you could say, ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, and you’re not engaged in criminal activity, let’s put video cameras in every person’s bedroom. And let’s just record the video, 24/7, in their bedroom. And we won’t look at it until we have reason to look at it. You shouldn’t be concerned because . . .’”

At this point, Posner interrupted: “Look, that’s a silly argument.”

Cole: “But it’s based on a New Yorker cartoon.”

The Judge was a tad miffed; he waved his right hand up and down in a dismissive way: “The sex video, that’s silly!Waving his index finger to emphasize his point, he added: “What you should be saying, [what] you should be worried about [are] the types of revelation[s] of private conduct [that] discourage people from doing constructive things. You mentioned Alcoholics Anonymous . . .”

Cole: “I find sex to be a constructive thing.”

Obviously frustrated, Posner raised his palms up high in protest: “Let me finish, will you please?”

Cole: “Sure.”

Posner: “Look, that was a good example, right? Because you can have a person who has an alcohol problem, and so he goes to Alcoholics Anonymous, but he doesn’t want this to be known. If he can’t protect that secret,” Posner continued while pointing, “then he’s not going to go to Alcoholics Anonymous. That’s gonna be bad. That’s the sort of thing you should be concerned about rather than with sex videos. . . . [The Alcoholics Anonymous example] is a good example of the kind of privacy that should be protected.”

David Cole

Professor David Cole

Privacy & Politics 

Meanwhile, the audience listened and watched on with its attention now fixed on the Georgetown professor.

Cole: “Well, let me give you an example of sex privacy. I think we all have an interest in keeping our sex lives private. That’s why we close doors into our bedroom, etc. I think that’s a legitimate interest, and it’s a legitimate concern. And it’s not because you have something wrong you want to hide, but because intimacy requires privacy, number one. And number two: think about the government’s use of sex information with respect to Dr. Martin Luther King. They investigated him, intruded on his privacy by bugging his hotel rooms to learn [about his] affair, and then sought to use that – and the threat of disclosing that affair – to change his behavior. Why? Because he was an active, political, dissident fighting for justice.”

“We have a history of that,” he added. “Our country has a history of that; most countries have a history of that; and that’s another reason the government will use information – that doesn’t necessarily concern [it] – to target people who [it is] concerned about . . . – not just because of their alcohol problem [or] not just because of their sexual proclivities – but because they have political views and political ideas that the government doesn’t approve of.”

At this point the moderator invited the Judge to respond.

Posner: “What happened to cell phones? Do you have sex photos on your cell phones?”

Cole: “I imagine if Dr. Martin Luther King was having an affair in 2014, as opposed to the 1960s, his cell phone, his smart phone, would have quite a bit of evidence that would lead the government to that affair. He’d have call logs; he might have texts; he might have e-mails – all of that would be on the phone.”

The discussion then moved onto the other panelists.

Afterwards, and writing on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Professor Orin Kerr, who was one of the participants in the conference, summed up his views of the exchange this way:

“I score this Cole 1, Posner 0.”

The First Amendment — Enter Glenn Greenwald Read More

Posner
3

On Free Expression & the First Amendment — More Questions for Judge Posner

 The American concept of freedom of speech poses a challenge to the pragmatist because, like ‘democracy,’ it is the repository of a great deal of unpragmatic rhetoric. It is at the heart of the American ‘civil religion,’ a term well chosen to convey the moralistic fervor in which free speech is celebrated. — Richard Posner (2003)

This is the sixth installment in the “Posner on Posner” series of posts on Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner. The first installment can be found here, the second here, the third here, the fourth here, and the fifth one here.  

Here, as elsewhere, controversy is never far from the conceptual corner where Richard Posner lingers. Merely consider, for example, the following point he made in a 2001 article: “political free speech is not an unalloyed blessing.” Or consider his take on the most famous line from NYT v. Sullivan — he tags it (see below) “empty rhetoric.” Or think about his views on privacy and the First Amendment (see Glenn Greenwald’s criticisms below). Such comments are sure to raise skeptical eyebrows among the rah-rah First Amendment crowd.

Then again, that crowd happily hails the Judge for the robust defense of free speech he displayed in NAACP v. Button (1963), which he takes credit for authoring while he was a law clerk to Justice William Brennan. And then there are his opinions in cases such  American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, the violent video game case. For staunch conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, protection of such expression “does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment.” No matter, Posner paves his own path, sans any Hugo Black-like passion in defense of free speech or any Clarence Thomas-like zeal in defense of originalism.  

Of course, there is more to be said about Posner’s pragmatic approach to our free speech jurisprudence, and on that score some will approve and others not. In the tumble of it all, he remains a Maverick, which is how he likes it.  

Some of the Judge’s more notable writings on free expression can be found in the following works:

  1. Economic Analysis of Law (9th ed. 2014) (chapter 29)
  2. Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of a National Emergency (2009) (chapter 5)
  3. Law, Pragmatism and Democracy (2003) (chapter 10)
  4. Frontiers of Legal Theory (2001) (chapter 2)
  5. The Speech Market and the Legacy of Schenck,” in Lee Bollinger & Geoffrey Stone, eds., Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era 121 (2002)
  6. Pragmatism versus Purposivism in First Amendment Analysis,” 54 Stanford Law Review 737 (2002)
  7. Free Speech in an Economic Perspective,” 20 Suffolk University Law Review 1 (1986)

For a sampling of his First Amendment opinions, go here and search “First Amendment.”

Below are some questions, on the topic of free expression and the First Amendment, that I posed to the Judge followed by his replies. (Note: Some links will only open in Firefox or Chrome.)

NB: A segment of this post, quoting a well-known journalist, has been temporarily omitted because of a strong objection. I will explain why in this Monday’s post.      

Question: Is speech overprotected by our courts and in our culture?

Posner: I think so. The most notorious example is expenditures on political advertising — Citizens United and its sequels.

Question: Though the Pentagon Papers Case (1971) is much celebrated in First Amendment circles, you seem to think that the Court might have gone too far. Two questions:

  1. What is your criticism of the case?
  2. Does over classification of national security information raise a a First Amendment issue?

Posner:

  1. I don’t think there is a right to read classified material. National security classification is one of many sensible exceptions to freedom of speech, along with threats, trade secrets, defamation, distribution of child pornography, lawful wiretapping and other lawful searches for communicative material, copyright infringement, and much else.
  2. It could, if there were no security justification.

Question: The so-called “war on terrorism” is unlike the Great Wars in that the enemy is ever changing and even hard to identify and the duration of the conflict is indeterminate. How does this affect the calculus of free speech “in wartime”?

Posner: I don’t see why the nature of the military conflict should make a difference.

Question: You have written that “some restrictions on speech actually promote speech.” That general idea seems to be getting some traction among egalitarian-minded liberal scholars dissatisfied with certain tenets of current free speech doctrine. Can you say more about your thinking here, especially as it might apply to the liberal defense of speech restrictions?

Posner: An obvious example is copyright protection, which restricts speech (the speech of copiers) but promotes speech overall by granting legal protection to original speech. Another obvious example is restricting the number of speakers in a political debate so that the debate won’t degenerate into an unintelligible babble of interruptions. Similarly one doesn’t want to allow the use of threats to silence people. A subtle example is the censorship of the Elizabethan theatre, which may well have promoted creativity by forcing playwrights like Shakespeare to situate contemporary problems in exotic times and places, in order to get by the censor.

Question: You pride yourself on being a “balancer,” as one who compares the social pluses and minuses of restrictions on free speech. Can you be an effective balancer absent a reliable record of the actual or even conjectural harms and benefits of speech? And what if the lawyers, as if often the case, tender no reliable empirical evidence one way or the other? Who wins, where is the conceptual default? Or must the reviewing court do its own research to resolve the question?

Posner: I don’t know how much empirical work has been done on the subject. In its absence, there is just guesswork, although the basic structure of American free speech law seems okay. Some of it strikes me as silly, notably granting rights of free speech to school kids.

[RKLC: 12-12-14: See William Baude’s commentary here.]

Question: Whatever its shortcomings, one of the benefits of a category-based approach to free speech (combined with certain tailoring tools, e.g., overbreath, etc.), is judicial efficiency. The rules are not unworkably open-ended and subjective, and are therefore relatively manageable for judges and lawyers alike.

  1. Mindful of that, how judicially efficient is your economic-based approach with its assorted variables? – e.g., taking into account and balancing the relevant benefits (B), harms (H), offensiveness (O), probability (P), the number of years between when speech occurs and when the harm is likely to materialize, and the administrative costs of a regulation (A).
  2. What about lawmakers, the focus of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law . . . )? How likely are they to engage in such sophisticated cost-benefit analysis? Is your proposed approach a realistic test for them to employ in considering the constitutionality of proposed laws affecting speech?

Posner:

  1. One can hardly exclude offensiveness, other harms, probability of harm, remoteness of harm, etc. from consideration, any more than you can do that in an ordinary tort case.
  2. Do lawmakers ever do sophisticated cost-benefit analysis?

Question: In cases such as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), is the purported harm so great as to preclude any meaningful balancing? It was precisely that concern that prompted Justice Stephen Breyer to complain in dissent: “I believe the Court has failed to examine the Government’s justifications with sufficient care. It has failed to insist upon specific evidence, rather than general assertion.”

How would you weigh in on this? By your standards, was Holder a case of failed balancing?

Judge Learned Hand

Judge Learned Hand

Posner: I haven’t read the case.

Question: You have expressed some conceptual approval of Judge Learned Hand’s opinion in United States v. Dennis (1950) in which he upheld the convictions of eleven Communist Party leaders for violating the Smith Act. Do you agree with the judgment in that case? Please say a few words about why you agree or disagree with the Dennis judgment.

Posner: Hand’s formula in Dennis is I think fine—it is a variant of the famous Hand negligence formula from his opinion in Carroll Towing. The Communist Party leaders were essentially agents of the Soviet Union, so I don’t see why their speech should be thought privileged by the First Amendment.

Question: Don’t phrases like “clear and present danger” (which, by the way, was used by the attorney Benjamin W. Shaw in 1918) invite, as Paul Freund suggested in 1949, a kind of mantra-like application devoid of the kind of realist and pragmatic balancing you endorse?

Posner:  It’s a dumb phrase. A murky remote danger could be very great.

Question: Based on what you know in light of the book you edited on Holmes, did he get the judgments right in Schenck, Frohwerk and Debs?

Posner: Probably not in Schenck or Debs; I don’t recall Frohwerk.

Question: “Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open . . . .”

Do you consider those lines from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) to be “unpragmatic rhetoric”?

Posner: Empty rhetoric.

 Question: The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have said relatively little about textualism when it comes to free speech and press issues. Why do you suppose that is?

Posner: There is no text. “Freedom of speech” is a heading, not a test.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts

Question: The Roberts Court has rendered 36 First Amendment free expression rulings. How would you characterize the First Amendment jurisprudence of the current Court?

Posner: Very nice for fat cats and enemies of abortion.

Question: You have long been on record as being a critic of the Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976). You maintain that the “American system of campaign financing is extremely porous and is widely and probably correctly believed to constitute a thinly disguised system of quasi-bribes of elected officials; at the very least it tilts the playing field very steeply toward the wealthy and the well organized . . . .” Given that, how bad in your view have things become in light of rulings such as McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)?

Posner: Very bad.

Question: Do you favor some kind of constitutional amendment to remedy the problems you have identified

Posner: [The idea of a constitutional amendment is] a waste of time.

Posner on Roberts

Can so naive-seeming a conception of the political process reflect the actual beliefs of the intellectually sophisticated Chief Justice? Maybe so, but one is entitled to be skeptical. Obviously, wealthy businessmen and large corporations often make substantial political contributions in the hope (often fulfilled) that by doing so they will be buying the support of politicians for policies that yield financial benefits to the donors. [Source here]

Question: In his dissent in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), Justice Breyer declared: “the First Amendment advances not only the individual’s right to engage in political speech, but also the public’s interest in preserving a democratic order in which collective speech matters.” What is you view on this idea “collective speech” and the First Amendment?

Posner: A little high-falutin’ for my taste. I would just say that large corporations and wealthy people shouldn’t be allowed to buy elections.

Question: Despite your criticisms of Buckley and its progeny, you have also expressed serious doubts about campaign finance reform proposals. Please explain why you think such efforts are problematic.

Posner: Have I? I don’t recall

Question: In Frontiers of Legal Theory you wrote: “Individuals or groups that have more money than the average amount of money have always had more than the average ability to spend money on trying to influence public opinion. We do not consider such inequality a compelling reason for limiting free speech.” Do you still believe that?

Posner: The mere fact of inequality is not critical. And it would be very difficult for a new candidate to get launched without access to substantial donors. The problems are the concealment of the identity of big donors, the implicit quid pro quo (donor is buying influence, and donee who is not influenced is unlikely to obtain substantial future donations), and the failure to place some ceiling on the amount of donations that a particular individual should be free to make. And I doubt that companies as distinct from individuals should be permitted to make campaign contributions.

Question: As you know, the speech in question in Citizens United involved a political documentary titled Hillary: The Movie. A conservative non-profit group sought to air it within 30 days of the primary. During oral arguments in the case, the question was asked: “What if the particular movie involved here had not been distributed by Video on Demand? Suppose that people could view it for free on Netflix over the Internet? Suppose that free DVDs were passed out. Suppose people could attend the movie for free in a movie theater; suppose the exact text of this was distributed in a printed form.”

 How would you answer that question? Is it your position that showing that political documentary and/or publishing a book on it during an election is not protected speech under the First Amendment?

Posner: The question is the scope of protection. I don’t think the First Amendment should be interpreted to prevent government from limiting the amount of broadcasting (or equivalent, like movies) in the last few weeks before a national election.

Question: What is your view of the secondary effects doctrine as it has been applied by the Court and lower courts since its use in Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986) and then again in Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991), which overruled an opinion that you authored. In 1988, your former boss, Justice William Brennan, warned that the doctrine “could set the court on a road that will lead to the evisceration of First Amendment freedoms.” Do you agree? Where do you stand on this matter?

Posner: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it if it is supported by real evidence, though I think it was misapplied in the Barnes case because there wasn’t any evidence that nude dancing promotes crime to any significant extent.

The next installment, the seventh, in the Posner on Posner series was scheduled to be “On Judicial Reputation.” It will now be preceded by a special post on free speech and privacy.  

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 41 (First Amendment News) Three Harvard Law Review essays discuss Justice Breyer’s free speech jurisprudence

  • Judge Breyer has a unique zig-zag style. Ralph Nader (confirmation hearing statement, July 15, 1994)
  • I do not rest my conclusion upon a strict categorical analysis. – Justice Stephen Breyer (concurring in United States v. Alvarez, June 28, 2012)
  • The single most important area of Breyer’s work on the Court has been his opinions on the First Amendment, in which he has developed a unique and pathbreaking approach to issues of freedom of speech. — Paul Gewirtz (Yale Law Journal, 2006)
Justice Stephen Breyer

On the one hand . . . but then on the other

When it comes to free speech, he is darling of the Liberal Left . . . or some on the Left, or of some on the Left in the legal academy, or of those on the Left who abhor rulings such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). To others, he is the Justice who got the First Amendment right (albeit in dissent) in cases such as Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010) and Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). Many of those same defenders shy away from their praise when it comes to opinions such as the one Justice Breyer authored in Randall v. Sorrell (2006).

In his pragmatist approach, one will readily discern the vernacular of ad hoc balancing, of  “competing constitutional concerns” or “First Amendment interests . . . on both sides of the legal equation.” Mindful of such concerns, he asks: Are the “restrictions on speech disproportionate when measured against their speech-related benefits”? And why? What is the purpose of such balancing? He responds: to “facilitate a conversation among ordinary citizens that will encourage their informed participation.” To that end, government may limit speech in the supposed service of “preserving a democratic order” or for the purpose of promoting and protecting  “collective speech.” In this way an others, and dating back to his 1997 concurrence in Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC II, Stephen Breyer has set out to rewrite First Amendment jurisprudence.

In light of his two decades of service on the Supreme Court, I thought I would offer some background information on how the Justice has decided First Amendment free expression cases (29 are listed below), his thoughts on free speech generally, and how scholars and lawyers have viewed his jurisprudence in this area. A sketch of all of that is set out below by way of select references to various sources.

HLR Essays in Honor of Justice Breyer 

The November issue of the Harvard Law Review has a collection of essays in honor of Justice Stephen Breyer’s twenty years of service on  the United States Supreme Court. The following three essays concern the Justice’s free speech jurisprudence:

Let me pose a hypothetical

Let me pose a hypothetical: “Candidate Smith — we can only give him $2,600 — has a lot of supporters.”

Active Liberty: Justice Breyer on Free Speech

In his 2005 book, Active Liberty: Interpreting our Democratic Constitution, Justice Breyer devoted a chapter (pp. 39-55) to the question of free speech.

Roberts Court Era: Justice Breyer’s Majority or Plurality Opinions in Free Expression Cases

In what follows, S indicates that a majority of the Court sustained the First Amendment claimed whereas D means that it was denied.

Separate Opinions: Below is a list of separate opinions authored by Justice Breyer in free expression cases decided during the Roberts Court era:

a pensive moment

the pensive pragmatist

Justice Breyer’s Pre-Roberts Court Opinions: Selected Cases 

First Circuit Free Expression Opinions Read More

2

FAN 40.1 (First Amendment News) Banzhaf responds to Corn-Revere on FCC Redskins Flap

Professor John Banzhaf

Professor John Banzhaf, III

In an earlier post I profiled Robert Corn-Revere’s WSJ op-ed entitled “Free-Speech Foes Call an Audible — Bringing the FCC into the ‘Redskins’ debate is an invitation for First Amendment mischief.” The op-ed was written in critical response to a petition filed by George Washington Law Professor John Banzhaf to the Federal Communications Commission concerning the use of the Washington Redskins’ name on broadcast airwaves. At the end of my blog profile I invited Professor Banzhaf to respond, which he has now done. His response is set out below.

Robert Corn-Revere apparently objects that I have asked the FCC not to renew the broadcast license of a station that repeatedly and unnecessarily broadcasts a word which has been found in several legal proceedings to be a racial slur even when applied to an NFL team – “R*dskins,” the so-called R-word, equivalent to the N-word so hateful to African Americans, and never used on the air – and is even so defined in most dictionaries. But, in an apparent attempt to prove some point, he describes at length a major life-saving step I persuaded the FCC to take, and (perhaps deliberately) overlooks several obvious points.

In 1966 I persuaded the FCC with one filing (far shorter than the one now in question, and one which many likewise called “frivolous” at the time) to apply a largely unknown and moribund principle – the “Fairness Doctrine” — to cigarette advertising. The result was that anti-smoking messages were broadcast on radio and TV for the first time — hundreds of millions of (1968) dollars worth. This caused the country’s first major drop in cigarette consumption; estimated by itself to have saved millions of lives. It also led directly to a ban on cigarettes commercials; something which saved even more lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs. [See  Banzhaf, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al. (D.C. Cir., 1968, per Bazelon, C.J.)]

imagesThose who seek to hide behind the First Amendment argued then, as Corn-Revere does now, that both moves — first forcing stations to broadcast statements against smoking, and then banning them from running cigarette commercials — violated Free Speech, but I successfully defended both decisions in court. Thus, I was able to persuade the FCC to make one of its most important and significant decisions ever — one which saved millions of lives and got rid of cigarette commercials — yet Corn-Revere criticizes the fact that the FCC granted my request, apparently because the Fairness Doctrine was later abandoned. Yet this makes as much sense as criticizing the Special Prosecutor legislation (which I also had a hand in bringing into effect) — which helped save the country from a major constitutional crisis during Watergate — because it likewise was eventually allowed to expire.

He also fails to mention another FCC filing of mine that forced the major TV stations in DC — and eventually around the country – to begin featuring African Americans as reporters and in other significant on-air positions. That one, like the one he now criticizes and seeks to belittle, was likewise based on allegations of racism. Corn-Revere also fails to note how many of my other agency petitions, likewise derided as “frivolous” and/or publicity stunts at the time, were granted and were successful: in getting women admitted, for the first time, to the Cosmos Club and to formerly all-male state-supported military academies; in restricting and ultimately banning smoking on airplanes; in changing labels on foods, birth control pills and elsewhere; in striking down various forms of sex-based price discrimination, etc.

Although Corn-Revere opines (citing no authority) that my petition has no legal basis, three former FCC commissioners (including a former Chairman), as well as almost a dozen broadcasting law superstars, have publicly stated that such broadcasts are probably illegal under current law. The current FCC Chairman has stated that my petition will be taken seriously and evaluated on its merits, something he would not have said if it were obviously “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal argument.” And other broadcast law attorneys who oppose the petition have been forced to admit that it will at the very least likely hold up the license renewals of the stations for a considerable period of time, impacting their credit ratings, their ability to sell or transfer assets, etc.

Given that at least one TV station lost its license based upon allegations of racism, and that the FCC previously ruled that racial slurs constituted “profanity” (which cannot be broadcast during prime time), the tremendous value of a station’s broadcast license, and my track record in persuading the FCC and many other agencies to take unprecedented steps in response to imaginative petitions many said had no chance of success, given all that the question is: Should stations ignore this new movement and continue to bet the farm (their FCC licenses), simply to be able to say “R*dskins” rather than “DC” or “Washington” when providing the sports scores or otherwise talking about this NFL team?

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 40 (First Amendment News) Steve Shiffrin & Bob Corn-Revere debate “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?”

Bob Corn-Revere & Steve Shiffrin (with Joel Gora in background)

Bob Corn-Revere & Steve Shiffrin (with Joel Gora in background)

For those who savor good give-and-take talk about the First Amendment, last Wednesday evening was a memorable one as Professor Steven Shiffrin debated Robert Corn-Revere with Ashly Messenger moderating. The topic: “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?” Why that title? Because that’s the working title of Professor Shiffrin’s next book.

The New York city event was the third in a series of First Amendment salons held at the offices of the law firm of Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz. The program was introduced by Lee Levine, who announced that this was the first salon done in conjunction with the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School. The event was video cast live to the firm’s office in Washington, D.C. and to the Abrams Institute in New Haven.

Among others, those attending the event included: Floyd Abrams, Sandra Baron, John Berger, Joan Bertin, Vince Blasi, Kali Borkoski, Karen Gantz, Joel Gora, Laura Handman, David Horowitz, Maureen Johnston, Adam Liptak, Greg Lukianoff, Tony Mauro, Wes Macleaod-Ball, David Savage, David Schulz, Paul Smith, and James Swanson.

The exchange was robust as the Cornell professor took articulate and passionate exception to several of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment rulings, including United States v. Stevens, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and United States v. Alvarez – all cases in which Corn-Revere had an amicus’ hand in defending the free speech claims. No potted plant, the First Amendment lawyer fired back with facts, figures, and history as the two men debated the pros and cons of balancing vs strict scrutiny approaches to free speech decision-making. The animated discussion was always friendly and at times even funny as the two traded witty retorts.

The dialogue was enriched as Vince Blasi, Katherine Bolger, Joan Bertin, Paul Smith, James Swanson, and Floyd Abrams, among others, weighed in. As the discussion developed one could almost see minds bouncing back-and-forth as Ms. Messenger pressed the two seasoned First Amendment experts. The evening ended on a high note as Shiffrin and Corn-Revere laughed and shook hands. (Re earlier salons, see here and here.)

Coming soon: book by Seana Shiffrin 

UnknownThe Shiffrin name has long been a familiar one in First Amendment circles — a name that has both invited and provoked thought. Now comes another Shiffrin, UCLA philosophy and law Professor Seana Shiffrin, who is a scholar in her own right — someone quite attune to jurisprudential nuance.

If the case of United States v. Alvarez (2012) — the Stolen Valor case — caught your attention, and if you were intrigued by Chief Judge Alex Kozinki’s separate opinion in the case when it was before the Ninth Circuit, then Speech Matters: On Lying, Morality, and the Law (Princeton University Press, Dec. 21, 2014) by Seana Shiffrin is a book for you. And it is more, philosophically much more.

Here is the publisher’s description of the forthcoming book: “To understand one another as individuals and to fulfill the moral duties that require such understanding, we must communicate with each other. We must also maintain protected channels that render reliable communication possible, a demand that, Seana Shiffrin argues, yields a prohibition against lying and requires protection for free speech. This book makes a distinctive philosophical argument for the wrong of the lie and provides an original account of its difference from the wrong of deception.”

“Drawing on legal as well as philosophical arguments, the book defends a series of notable claims — that you may not lie about everything to the “murderer at the door,” that you have reasons to keep promises offered under duress, that lies are not protected by free speech, that police subvert their mission when they lie to suspects, and that scholars undermine their goals when they lie to research subjects.”

“Many philosophers start to craft moral exceptions to demands for sincerity and fidelity when they confront wrongdoers, the pressures of non-ideal circumstances, or the achievement of morally substantial ends. But Shiffrin consistently resists this sort of exceptionalism, arguing that maintaining a strong basis for trust and reliable communication through practices of sincerity, fidelity, and respecting free speech is an essential aspect of ensuring the conditions for moral progress, including our rehabilitation of and moral reconciliation with wrongdoers.”

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Lies and the Murderer Next Door 5

Chapter 2: Duress and Moral Progress 47

Chapter 3: A Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech 79

Chapter 4: Lying and Freedom of Speech 116

Chapter 5: Accommodation, Equality, and the Liar 157

Chapter 6: Sincerity and Institutional Values 182

I plan to say more about this book in the coming year. Stay tuned.

UnknownNew book by Danish editor of newspaper that published cartoons of Mohammad

The author: Fleming Rose 

The book: The Tyranny of Silence (Cato Institute, Nov. 14, 2014)

Description: “When the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Viby, Denmark) published the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed nine years ago, Denmark found itself at the center of a global battle about the freedom of speech. The paper’s culture editor, Flemming Rose, defended the decision to print the 12 drawings, and he quickly came to play a central part in the debate about the limitations to freedom of speech in the 21st century. Since then, Rose has visited universities and think tanks and participated in conferences and debates around the globe in order to discuss tolerance and freedom. In The Tyranny of Silence, Flemming Rose writes about the people and experiences that have influenced the way he views the world and his understanding of the crisis, including meetings with dissidents from the former Soviet Union and ex-Muslims living in Europe. He provides a personal account of an event that has shaped the debate about what it means to be a citizen in a democracy and how to coexist in a world that is increasingly multicultural, multi-religious, and multi-ethnic.”

See Fleming Rose here re his recent appearance on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.  

1-A groups urge school district to select books “solely on sound educational grounds” Read More

2

FAN 38.1 (First Amendment News) FIRE bursts on out in NYC — Free speech celebration draws committed crowd

FlameandFIRE-390x195EXPLOSIVE. That is as good as any a word to describe the high energy level at the 15th Anniversary dinner of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), the group founded by Harvey Silvergate and  Alan Charles Kors in 1999. People were yelling “FIRE” in the crowded hall all evening long.

Some 280 people came together on Thursday evening last week at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in NYC. They gathered to show their enthusiastic support for this non-partisan free speech group. Contrary to the mood of our times, liberals, conservatives and libertarians joined together in common cause to endorse FIRE’s campaign to contest unconstitutional campus speech codes.

Guests included Radley BalkoJoan BertinPaul BloomRobert Corn-Revere, Alan Dershowitz, Norman DorsenDonald DownsJoel Gora, Jonathan HaidtWendy Kaminer, Roger KimballMichael McConnellKirsten Powers, Lenore SkenazyNadine Strossen, Matt Welch, and Karen Gantz Zahler, among others.

Morgan Freeman

Morgan Freeman

Students speak out

Aided by film clips on two big screens (see video here), four student activists who challenged campus speech codes spoke of their experiences. They were: Merritt Burch, Morgan Freeman, Chris Lee, and Robert Van Tuinen.

Two Speakers: A First Amendment Lawyer & a Cognitive Scientist 

There were two speeches, which further fired up the audience. The first speech was by the noted First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams. His remarks were entitled “Free Speech is in Trouble on Campus.” Here is an excerpt:

[O]nly FIRE … would think of and then respond to the explosion of unconstitutional speech codes that limit student and faculty speech as it did just last month by threatening over 300 colleges with litigation challenging such rules. And only FIRE would do the detailed work of reading each speech code so it could announce that 58% of public colleges and universities are, right now, acting unconstitutionally in limiting sometimes discomforting but First Amendment protected speech, on campus, and then follow that up by actually commencing lawsuits in this area. .  . . FIRE, from the day it was created, has understood this and sought to expose it and deal with it. We are in the midst of an epidemic and FIRE is providing an antidote. 

→ Steven Pinker (the  noted experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, linguist, and popular science author and Harvard professor) spoke after Abrams.  His remarks were titled “Three Reasons to Affirm Free Speech.” Here is an excerpt from his remarks:

Free speech is the only way to acquire knowledge about the world. Perhaps the greatest discovery in human history—one that is logically prior to every other discovery—is that all of our traditional sources of belief are in fact generators of error and should be dismissed as sources of knowledge. These include faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, augury, prophesy, intuition, clairvoyance, conventional wisdom, and the warm glow of subjective certainty.

Greg Lukianoff — The FIRE Man

Greg Lukianoff

Greg Lukianoff

He is like no other — Lukianoff, FIRE’s president, is a man full of ideas, energy, and the smarts to make it all work. Author, pamphleteeractivist, and Stanford Law graduate, this 40-year-old who grew up in Danbury, CT is changing the world around him by bringing the First Amendment to the doorstep of college bureaucrats bent on squelching freedom of speech and conscience. And Lukianoff and FIRE are winning; they have prevailed (either by a court victory or a settlement) in every one of the challenges they have brought — and they are busily preparing many more. Beyond the courtroom, Lukianoff regularly takes his free-speech message to the pubic, either by testifing before Congress or appearing on the O’Reilly Factor, the CBS Evening News, or by publishing an op-ed in this or that newspaper. Regardless of one’s ideological stripes, he is always prepared to make a strong case for the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, Greg Lukianoff and his colleagues at FIRE have cases pending against the following six colleges:

  1. University of Hawaii at Hilo
  2. Western Michigan University
  3. Chicago State University
  4. Citrus College
  5. Iowa State University, and
  6. Ohio University

 Full disclosure: I attended as a guest of the Davis Wright Tremaine law firm, which works with FIRE in litigating campus speech code cases.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 38 (First Amendment News) Abrams Institute to host conference on Net Neutrality

abrams-logoOn November 3rd, the Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression will host a conference entitled Net Neutrality: From Debate to Policy Decisions. The conference will take place at the Century Association located at 7 West 43rd Street in New York City. The event starts with breakfast at 7:30 a.m. and ends promptly at 9:20 a.m. Here is a description:

After several years of discussions in academia, industry, and policymaking circles, the issue of net neutrality has taken center stage in debates on U.S. media and telecommunications. In February, cable providers Comcast and Time-Warner announced their intent to merge into a single company. And this spring, the FCC solicited public input on its proposed Open Internet Rules, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has stated that he expects to have enforceable rules in place by the end of 2014. Under the new rules, “behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness to the Internet will not be permitted.” With these events as backdrop, the Abrams Institute at Yale Law School will host a panel discussion at the Century Club in New York, on the topic of net neutrality. 

After several years of discussions in academia, industry, and policymaking circles, the issue of net neutrality has taken center stage in debates on U.S. media and telecommunications. In February, cable providers Comcast and Time-Warner announced their intent to merge into a single company. And this spring, the FCC solicited public input on its proposed Open Internet Rules, and FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has stated that he expects to have enforceable rules in place by the end of 2014. Under the new rules, “behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness to the Internet will not be permitted.” With these events as backdrop, the Abrams Institute at Yale Law School will host a panel discussion at the Century Club in New York, on the topic of net neutrality.

Panel speakers

 Registration

A fee of $35 per person will be charged to cover the cost of the continental breakfast. Go here to register. The registration deadline is Thursday, October 30th.

 CLE Credit 

One and one half (1.5) CLE credit hours in Professional Practice (corporate) will be available for this program, which is transitional and non-transitional in nature. Preregistration is required for CLE credit.

* * * * 

 Related Articles

→ Upcoming AALS Panel Discussion

Petition to Watch 

At its Conference on October 31, 2014, the Court will consider the following free speech petition:

Issues: (1) Whether compelling a noncommercial pro-life speaker to declare it lacks a medical license passes strict scrutiny; and (2) whether a compelled speech law is unconstitutionally vague if the city can deem speakers as needing to comply, because of their “appearance,” without any ability for the speaker to know whether it must comply.
(Hat tip to Maureen Johnston)
Lithwick takes swipe at Roberts Court
Dahlia Lithwick

Dahlia Lithwick

In a new essay titled “The Courts’ Baffling New Math,” the ever feisty Dahlia Lithwick, the Supreme Court commentator for Slate, argues:

“The Supreme Court of the John Roberts era gets one thing very right: It’s one of the most free-speech-protective courts in modern history. There is no purveyor of semi-pornographic crush videos, no maker of rape-aspiring violent video games, no homophobic funeral protester, no anti-abortion clinic counselor, and no filthy-rich campaign contribution–seeker whose rights and privileges will not be treated by the Court with the utmost reverence and solicitude.”

Later in the same essay, Lithwick adds:

“This brings us back to the First Amendment, seemingly the only right that truly counts anymore in America. Why has the constitutional right to be heard all but overmastered the right to vote or legally terminate a pregnancy? Maybe the court is still capable of hearing even as it loses the ability to see? Or maybe the powerful voices of Fred Phelps, Shaun McCutcheon, and Anthony Elonis—the creatures who rightly are allowed to say and do horrible things in the name of free speech—count for more than the hundreds and thousands of voiceless voters and abortion-seekers who are seemingly not even important enough to name?”

Three Replies Read More

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 37 (First Amendment News) McCutcheon case produces flood of scholarly commentary — 41 works!

UPDATED: 10-24-14

Before proceeding to the scholarly output on McCutcheon, here is where we stand this Term on First Amendment free expression cases:

Review Granted

  1. Elonis v. United States (to be argued on 12-1-14)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
  3. Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Review Pending

  1. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  2. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell
  3. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission

Review Denied

  1. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  2. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  3. Mehanna v. United States 

* * * *

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) is barley six months old and it has already produced an abundance of scholarly commentary, including books, symposia, and articles — no fewer than 40 such works. And all of this before the revered Harvard Law Review issue dedicated to the last Supreme Court term finds its way to print. Ditto for the equally acclaimed Supreme Court Review. How times have changed. The days of waiting are over; we live in a wired era. That’s the good news. The bad news, of course, is: who can possibly begin to read all of this?

That said, and for better or worse, below is a list of books (e-books and print ones) and articles and essays (in online companions and print journals) that either discuss McCutcheon in full or in part (e.g. Zephyr Teachout’s book) or issues very much related to the decision (e.g, Robert Post’s book). All were published after the decision came down on April 2, 2014. Browse them and see how many catch your eye.

5 Books

36 Scholarly Articles or Blog Posts  Read More

1

FAN 36.2 (First Amendment News) Corn-Revere on the FCC & Redskins Controversy

Robert Corn-Revere

Robert Corn-Revere

In case you missed it, yesterday Robert Corn-Revere had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The piece was titled, “Free-Speech Foes Call an Audible — Bringing the FCC into the ‘Redskins’ debate is an invitation for First Amendment mischief.”

Here is the petition to the Federal Communications Commission, the one that gave rise to the FCC controversy.

 Here is how Mr. Corn-Revere began his WSJ op-ed:

“However you may feel about the name of the National Football League franchise in Washington, D.C., do we really want the Federal Communications Commission to step into the Redskins controversy as the nation’s culture police?”

“That’s what George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III is seeking by asking the FCC to deny the broadcast license of WWXX, the FM radio station in Washington licensed to team owner Dan Snyder. The petition, filed in September, asks the FCC to yank the broadcast license because the station “deliberately, repeatedly, and unnecessarily broadcasts the word ‘R*dskins’ during most of its broadcast day.”

“That’s right, in lieu of the team name, the petition uses ‘R*dskins.'”

“This is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal argument. It is well beyond the FCC’s statutory or constitutional authority to prohibit speech merely because some find it offensive. But the idea gained some political traction after a Sept. 30 meeting when several FCC commissioners said they would consider the issue. Such consideration should not take long if the FCC is serious about following the law.”

Corn-Revere, former chief counsel to former FCC Chairman James Quello, then proceeded to lay out his case as to why Professor Banzhaf’s petition should be denied. In the process, Corn-Revere drew on FCC precedents and experience with regulations of this general type. In the end, he predicted:

“Without even getting into the frailties of the petition’s legal arguments, it doesn’t take a seer to predict what would happen if the FCC started canceling broadcast licenses because some people in the audience may be offended by something they had heard or seen. It would be a national version of college ‘speech codes,’ which have devolved into an offended-ness sweepstakes.

“There is no doubt about the sincerity of those who object to the name Washington Redskins. But asking the FCC to silence broadcasters who disagree with them is not the solution.”

Note: Professor Banzhaf has accepted my invitation to respond. I will post it as soon as i can. Stay tuned. 

0

FAN 36.1 (First Amendment News) Skover to Speak on McCutcheon Case

By way of a shameless plug for my coauthor:

INFLUENTIAL VOICES  

David Skover

David Skover

Seattle University School of Law
is proud to present
Professor David Skover

SCOTUS Books-in-Brief: When Money Speaks: A New Venture in E-Publishing

Wednesday, October 29
Room C6, Sullivan Hall, 4:30 p.m.
Reception to follow

The event is open to all, but RSVPs are requested.

Professor Skover will speak about the creation of the SCOTUS Books-in-Brief imprint and his latest coauthored book, When Money Speaks: The McCutcheon Decision, Campaign Finance Laws, and the First Amendment.

When Money Speaks analyzes the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck aggregate limits on contributions to political candidates. It has been called “a brilliant discussion of campaign finance in America” and “the best book on the topic.”

The SCOTUS Books-in-Brief series provides readers with reliable, informative, and engaging narrative accounts of significant Supreme Court rulings shortly after they come down.

Introduction by Dean Annette E. Clark