MENU

Censorship

How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Aaron H. Caplan, Robert A. Destro, Todd P. Graves, Alan B. Morrison, Eugene Volokh, David Stras, Erik S. Jaffe November 17, 2014

While the substance of constitutional rights is always important, it is often the procedures surrounding the protection and enforcement of those rights that give them teeth – or defang them.  From the landmark case of New York Times v. Sullivan to the recently decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the procedures required before one can burden speech, or raise a successful defense under the First Amendment, are critical to the effective scope of the constitutional right.  This panel will explore the various procedural safeguards applied – or not applied – in the context of the Freedom of Speech.  What level of proof is required before speech may be restricted based on an otherwise valid interest?  When will a private party have standing to challenge a restriction on speech that may not yet be final but that has immediate adverse consequences, such as requiring a party to defend an investigation or rebut a preliminary government finding in the midst of an election campaign?  What safeguards should exist in administrative processes, such as IRS tax exemption rulings, where discretion may be used to punish speech or otherwise favor one viewpoint over another?  These and other examples all illustrate that even where the substance of First Amendment rights is well established, procedural loopholes or protections can reduce or enhance the effectiveness of those rights.

The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group presented this panel on "How First Amendment Procedures Protect First Amendment Substance" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Aaron H. Caplan, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
  • Prof. Robert A. Destro, The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law
  • Mr. Todd P. Graves, Graves Garrett LLC
  • Prof. Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professorial Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University Law School
  • Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. David R. Stras, Associate Justice, Minnesota Supreme Court
  • Introduction: Mr. Erik S. Jaffe, Sole Practitioner, Erik S. Jaffe, PC; and Chairman, Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press - Event Audio/Video

2013 National Lawyers Convention
Adam Liptak, Eric M. Freedman, Eugene Volokh, Michael B. Mukasey, A. Raymond Randolph, John G. Malcolm November 22, 2013

Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press - Event Audio/VideoWhat are the First Amendment rights of press in the context of criminal investigations, and when national security is at issue?   In the modern, digital age, is there even agreement on who qualifies as press?  Should institutional or traditional press have greater rights over non-traditional media, including bloggers?  What are the rights of media to publish material leaked from the government?  Does the answer change if the media solicited the material or otherwise participated in the leak?  What are the policy and legal considerations when it comes to a national media shield law?  These and other questions will be addressed by our panel of experts.

The Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group hosted this panel on "Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press" on Friday, November 15, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.

Criminal Law: Criminal Law Enforcement versus the Free Press
12:00 noon – 2:00 p.m.

State Room

  • Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, The New York Times
  • Prof. Eric M. Freedman, Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law, Hofstra University School of Law
  • Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
  • Hon. Michael Mukasey, Partner, Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and former United States Attorney General
  • Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
  • Introduction: Mr. John G. Malcolm, Senior Legal Fellow, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

[Watch or listen now!]

The FCC vs. the First Amendment - Event Audio/Video

2013 National Lawyers Convention
Marvin Ammori, Miguel Estrada, Jane Mago, Ajit V. Pai, Brett M. Kavanaugh November 20, 2013

The FCC vs. the First Amendment - Event Audio/VideoAdministrative agencies have long threatened First Amendment freedoms, and have been called to task for their actions by the courts and by Congress.  This panel will examine the interaction between federal regulators and speakers, focusing on an agency with a particular free speech regulation role: the Federal Communications Commission.  From indecency enforcement to the Fairness Doctrine, media ownership to the recent Tennis Channel decision, the FCC has a long history of creating tension with the First Amendment.  During our session, a panel of experts will discuss the legal and policy implications of the Commission’s recent (and historical) interactions with the First Amendment, and what these actions imply for the future of free speech in the shadow of the administrative state.

The Telecommunications & Electronic Media Practice Group hosted this panel on "The FCC vs. the First Amendment" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.

Telecommunications: The FCC vs. the First Amendment
3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.?
State Room

  • Prof. Marvin Ammori, Bernard L. Schwartz Fellow, New America Foundation
  • Mr. Miguel A. Estrada, Esquire, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
  • Ms. Jane Mago, Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters Education Foundation and Executive Vice President and General Counsel, National Association of Broadcasters
  • Hon. Ajit V. Pai, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission
  • Moderator: Hon. Brett M. Kavanaugh, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit?

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

[Watch or listen now!]

Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide - An Overview by the Authors - Event Audio/Video

Silenced: Are Global Trends to Ban Religious Defamation, Religious Insult, and Islamophobia a New Challenge to First Amendment Freedoms?
Paul Marshall, Nina Shea, Jonathan Bunch December 01, 2011

Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom WorldwideThe West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This panel featured Mr. Paul Marshall and Ms. Nina Shea, both of the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, as they discussed their new book Silenced: How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide. Introduction by Mr. Jonathan Bunch, Vice President & Director of State Courts at the Federalist Society.

The Muslim World - Event Audio/Video

Silenced: Are Global Trends to Ban Religious Defamation, Religious Insult, and Islamophobia a New Challenge to First Amendment Freedoms?
David F. Forte, Amjad M. Khan, Jacob Mchangama, Samuel Tadros, James P. Kelly December 01, 2011

The Muslim WorldThe West is also now experiencing a move toward new blasphemy standards through bans on "hate speech," "the stereotyping of Islam," and charges of "Islamophobia." The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) within the United Nations and in the European Union has been a visible proponent of hate speech restrictions and other measures. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the U.S. government will sponsor a conference with the OIC on how to implement a U.N. resolution combating "negative stereotyping" of Islam, the focus of a recent U.N. resolution. Speakers at our conference on November 4 addressed the prevalence of trends concerning hate speech and blasphemy laws, and whether they pose a serious threat to the freedoms of citizens of the West, including Muslims, as well as people in OIC member states. This panel on "The Muslim World" featured Prof. David F. Forte of Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law; Mr. Amjad Mahmood Khan of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA; Mr. Jacob Mchangama of the Center for Political Studies (Copenhagen, Denmark); Mr. Samuel Tadros of the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom; and Mr. James P. Kelly III, Director of International Affairs at the The Federalist Society, as the moderator.