0

Close to Home

82px-William_Jennings_Bryan_cph.3b33180I recently learned an interesting fact that is not relevant to any current event.  William Jennings Bryan gave his acceptance speech for the 1900 Democratic presidential nomination across the street from my office.  In those days, candidates accepted their nomination after (not during) the convention.  Indeed, there was a tradition where a delegation from the convention went to the candidate’s home to present the invitation to run.  When Bryan gave his acceptance speech, he chose an outdoor rally in Indianapolis as the venue, and that location is now mostly occupied by the campus on which my law school sits.  (I’m sure there is a plaque somewhere the designates the exact sp0t.)

This was be the second most important speech ever given in Indianapolis.  The most important was this one.

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

Any resemblance to current members of the SELS council is purely coincidental.
Any resemblance to current members of the SELS council is purely coincidental.
5

“Mighty In Their Day:” Reflections on the 9th Annual Empirical Legal Studies Conference

In Tolkein’s legendarium, the 9 rings of power were given to mortal men as a means of their corruption.

“Those who used the Nine Rings became mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers, and warriors of old. They obtained glory and great wealth, yet it turned to their undoing. They had, as it seemed, unending life, yet life became unendurable to them. They could walk, if they would, unseen by all eyes in this world beneath the sun, and they could see things in worlds invisible to mortal men; but too often they beheld only the phantoms and delusions of Sauron. And one by one, sooner or later, according to their native strength and to the good or evil of their wills in the beginning, they fell under the thraldom of the ring that they bore and of the domination of the One which was Sauron’s. And they became forever invisible save to him that wore the Ruling Ring, and they entered into the realm of shadows. The Nazgûl were they, the Ringwraiths, the Úlairi, the Enemy’s most terrible servants; darkness went with them, and they cried with the voices of death. — The Silmarillion, Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age, 346.

The fate of those holding one of the Nine struck me as a useful starting off point for my review of the Ninth Empirical Legal Studies Conference. [For previous installments in my CELS recap series, see CELS III,IV, V, and VI, VII, VIII.1, VIII.2]  The ring-of-power story is apt for several reasons.  ELS is waxing — we’ve obtained “glory and great [relative] wealth,” yet our methods are often described as inscrutable, as we see “things in worlds invisible to mortal men.” One well-known law blogger and sci-fi geek repeatedly has claimed that we behold only Sauron.  Ultimately, there’s a fairly decent argument, based on this year’s conference, that our thraldom — to machine learning — is nigh.  But putting aside the obvious parallels between the world’s leading legal empiricists and Angmar, the witch-king, there’s a far more pressing reason to use the 9 rings as a hook. Multiple sources told me that they found last year’s two-part recap to be “boring” or at best “workmanlike,” asking for more “made-up anecdotes” to spice it up.  So, off we go to Berkeley.

To start, let’s acknowledge the obvious. The West Coast is terribly distant from the home schools of most of the conference’s attendees. (I can’t prove that with data, but I thought this was exactly the kind of unsourced gossip that my readers wanted to see here.)  That was especially true for roughly 200 attendees from the Max Planck institute & the entire faculty of every Israeli law school.  The weather rendered the long trip tolerable, but only just.  Why not bend to reason and just hold a future conference in Germany or in Tel Aviv? Certainly, the conference is now decidedly more international in scope than it was only a few years back.  Was this the result of a maturing discipline, rapidly falling domestic travel budgets, or some unknown missing variable?  Other than the location, which they couldn’t help and probably were proud of, as West Coasters tend to be, the organizers (Anne Joseph O’Connell and Eric Talley) were magnificent and deserve credit for pulling off an enormous project without a hitch.

I arrived in time for both plenaries the first day. In a session on The Future of Big Data and Social Science, I learned that it’s much easier to do social science research when pesky IRBs don’t stand in your way. Though, given recent events, maybe IRBs only get in your way if you bother to tell them you are working on manipulating the political process with your purloined state seals.  In Evidence on Income and Wealth Inequality, Emannuel Saez pitched the utility of very high marginal tax rates as the (only?) solution to persistent and rising inequality. When pushed to articulate whether and how inequality was a social evil, he not surprisingly responded with a market-based argument: i.e., his co-author’s book sales demonstrated the issue’s political salience, and, consequently, the question’s irrelevance.  I thought this was a rather chippy answer, though at the end you have to give it to him.  It may be the least read popular book of the last fifty years, but that’s a ways better than the least read unpopular book!

Read More

5

Does King v. Burwell Present Constitutional Difficulties?

Here is an interesting point raised in this piece by The New Republic.  If the Court interprets the ACA to say that subsidies may go only to states that set up exchanges, then wouldn’t that raise a Spending Clause issue under South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius?  Maybe that use of Congress’s spending authority is too coercive (whatever that means) because the subsidies are large and a state would suffer a lot if they had a health insurance system without federal subsidies while their neighbor had one with subsidies.

Mind you, I can see why what Congress may have done with the ACA subsidies is constitutional, but that’s not the question.  The question is whether the challenge to the Act raises “constitutional difficulties” that should be avoided by not reading the Act as providing for conditional spending.  I’m not sure what to think about this yet.

0

The Flawed Foundations of Article III Standing in Surveillance Cases (Part III)

In my first two posts, I’ve opened a critical discussion of Article III standing for plaintiffs challenging government surveillance programs by introducing the 1972 Supreme Court case of Laird v. Tatum. In today’s post, I’ll examine the Court’s decision itself, which held that chilling effects arising “merely from the individual’s knowledge” of likely government surveillance did not constitute adequate injury to meet Article III standing requirements.

Then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird Sharing a Light Moment With President Nixon

Then-Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird Sharing a Light Moment With President Nixon

Read More

6

The Roberts Convention

When I think about NFIB v. Sebelius, my understanding of what Chief Justice Roberts did was to say that in an election year the Justices appointed by one political party should not strike down the signature legislation of the other political party.  I have no idea what the Chief Justice thinks that the Chief Justice did two years ago, but how would what I just said apply to King if the decision is 5-4 against the Administration.

Well, 2015 is not an election year, and King would not strike down the Affordable Care Act.  But is an adverse ruling tantamount to striking it down given that Congress will not do much in response?  I don’t know.  I get different views on that from health law experts.  Some say this would be crippling, others say not so much.  One would think that the briefs will try to convince the Chief one way or the other on this–that matters as much as the technical aspects.

One other note–Paul Krugman’s column in today’s NY Times today on King is the liberal equivalent of a Rush Limbaugh tirade.  I don’t have time to go through all of the flaws.  I love reading him and think his economic views are spot on, but on this one he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

0

American Founding Son

I see Amazon is temporarily out of stock of my John Bingham biography, but don’t let that discourage you from buying the book.  (Yes, this is shameless self-promotion.)  More substantive posts about King coming tomorrow.