Mediaboss Marketing

On Dec. 24, 2020, Kenneth Chesebro and other lawyers fighting to reverse President Donald J. Trumps election defeat were debating whether to file litigation contesting Joseph R. Biden Jr.s victory in Wisconsin, a key swing state.

Mr. Chesebro argued there was little doubt that the litigation would fail in court he put the odds of winning at 1 percent as Mr. Trump continued to push his baseless claims of widespread fraud, according to emails reviewed by The New York Times.

But the relevant analysis, Mr. Chesebro argued, is political.

The emails have new significance because Mr. Chesebro is scheduled to be one of the first two of Mr. Trumps 18 co-defendants to go on trial this month on charges brought by the district attorneys office in Fulton County, Ga. The indictment accused Mr. Chesebro of conspiring to create slates of so-called fake electors pledged to Mr. Trump in several states that Mr. Biden had won.

Mr. Chesebros lawyers have argued that his work was shielded by the First Amendment and that he acted within his capacity as a lawyer. They have called for his case to be dismissed, saying he was merely researching and finding precedents in order to form a legal opinion, which was then supplied to his client, the Trump campaign.

Scott R. Grubman, a lawyer for Mr. Chesebro, said lawyers often argue for positions that are not widely held. For example, any lawyer who has ever filed a pleading challenging existing Supreme Court precedent falls within this category, he said. Maybe a long shot, but far from criminal. In fact, its how the law changes over time.

Mr. Trump has also signaled that one of his possible defenses is that he was simply acting on the advice of his lawyers.

But Mr. Chesebros emails could undercut any effort to show that the lawyers were focused solely on legal strategies. Rather than considering just the law and the facts of the case, Mr. Chesebro made clear he was considering politics and was well aware of how the Trump campaigns legal filings could be used as ammunition for Republicans efforts to overturn the results when Congress met to certify the Electoral College outcome on Jan. 6, 2021.

Just getting this on file means that on Jan. 6, the court will either have ruled on the merits or, vastly more likely, will have appeared to dodge again, Mr. Chesebro wrote in the email chain. He added that a lack of action by the Supreme Court would feed the impression that the courts lacked the courage to fairly and timely consider these complaints, and justifying a political argument on Jan. 6 that none of the electoral votes from the states with regard to which the judicial process has failed should be counted.

Of the chances of success, Mr. Chesebro estimated the odds the court would grant effective relief before Jan. 6, Id say only 1 percent. But he wrote the filing has possible political value.

Mr. Chesebro wrote that it was hard to have enormous optimism about what will happen on Jan. 6, but a lot can happen in the 13 days left until then, and I think having as many states under review both judicially and in state legislatures as possible is ideal.

He said the legal filings could produce a political payoff to bolster the argument that there should at least be extended debate in Congress about election irregularities in each state. He added that the public should come away from this believing that the election in Wisconsin was likely rigged, and stolen by Biden and Harris, who were not legitimately elected.

Responding to the email chain was John Eastman, the conservative lawyer who has also been charged in the Georgia election case. Mr. Eastman said he believed the legal arguments were rock solid but the odds of success were not based on the legal merits, but an assessment of the justices spines. And I understand that there is a heated fight underway.

Mr. Chesebro responded: I particularly agree that getting this on file gives more ammo to the justices fighting for the court to intervene. I think the odds of action before Jan. 6 will become more favorable if the justices start to fear that there will be wild chaos on Jan. 6 unless they rule by then, either way.

Mr. Trump had posted to Twitter days before for his followers to come to the Capitol on Jan. 6, telling them to be there. Will be Wild. Thousands of his supporters stormed the building, injuring at least 150 officers and delaying an official proceeding of Congress.

Other emails that Mr. Chesebro sent are crucial in the Georgia case. On Wednesday, the judge overseeing the case, Scott McAfee, ruled that a handful of emails that Mr. Chesebro sought to shield from evidence are admissible under the crime-fraud exception, the standard by which probable cause has been established that the correspondence or a lawyers advice was used in furtherance of a crime.

Mr. Chesebro and Sidney Powell, another Trump lawyer, are the only ones to seek speedy trials, as Georgia allows. Jury selection is scheduled to begin on Monday.

Photographs and videos reviewed by The New York Times suggest that Mr. Chesebro, a quiet Harvard Law graduate from Wisconsin, was in the crowd outside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He had spent part of that day closely following the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who helped lead a mob toward the building.

Alan Feuer contributed reporting.

Visit link:
Trump Lawyer Acknowledged Political Agenda in Election Suit ... - The New York Times

A digital-age dirty-trickster who used Twitter posts that looked like Hillary Clinton ads to spread false information before the 2016 presidential election was sentenced on Tuesday to seven months in prison.

During a trial last spring, prosecutors presented evidence that the man, Douglass Mackey, had joined private Twitter groups where participants reveled in using lies and deceit on behalf of Donald J. Trump, carrying out what one participant termed the deep psyops of meme war.

Much of that activity was protected by the First Amendment, prosecutors said. But they argued that Mr. Mackey committed a crime days before the election when, using the name Ricky Vaughn, he posted images targeting Black and Latino voters that claimed it was possible to vote by text message. The idea, prosecutors said, was to suppress votes for Mrs. Clinton.

One of the images showed a Black woman and another one had a message in Spanish. Both included logos resembling the Clinton campaigns and fine print attributing them to Hillary for President.

Mr. Mackey, who was convicted in March of conspiring to deprive others of their right to vote, declined to address the court before his sentencing on Wednesday.

Before issuing his sentence, Judge Ann M. Donnelly, of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, said that Mr. Mackey had been one of the leading members of that conspiracy and that it had been nothing short of an assault on our democracy.

Mr. Mackeys lawyer had asked in a memorandum to the judge that his client be spared prison, saying his offenses had consisted only of computer clicks.

In 2018, three years before he was arrested, Mr. Mackey started psychotherapy and decided to change his life, the lawyer, Andrew J. Frisch added, writing: The Douglass Mackey who stands before the court for sentencing is not Ricky Vaughn of seven years ago.

Prosecutors asked that Mr. Mackey be sentenced to six months to a year in prison. They wrote that any changes in his life were not because of regret, but because of his unmasking in 2018 as Ricky Vaughn, a notoriously hateful figure who boasted of leveraging a troll army and was included by M.I.T. Media Lab on a list of top election influencers.

Referring to Mr. Mackeys actions as mere clicks minimized their impact, prosecutors said, because his true power was his ability to spread messages to convert his clicks into tens of thousands more.

Mr. Mackeys trial provided a glimpse into a crass world in which far-right activists in Twitter groups called War Room and Infowars Madman sought to sow chaos and division with the goal of boosting Mr. Trump.

I wanted to infect everything, testified one participant, identified only as Microchip, who began cooperating with the F.B.I. in 2018 and pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge related to his circulation of misinformation.

Evidence showed that participants discussed generating interest in emails stolen from the Clinton campaign by Russia; portraying Mrs. Clinton as a warmonger; and promoting the claim that she had cheated during the primaries to get supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders to hate not just Hillary, but the Democratic Party itself.

Mr. Mackey pushed the hashtag #WriteInBernie, evidence showed, and stated that women and naturalized citizens should not be allowed to vote. He also wrote that Black people were unintelligent and gullible and suggested spreading a hashtag, #NeverVote, in Black social media spaces.

On Twitter, the day after he posted the false voting meme showing the woman, prosecutors said, Mr. Mackey made his motive clear, writing that a key to a Trump victory would be to limit black turnout.

Follow this link:
Man Who Spread Misinformation on Trump's Behalf Sentenced to 7 ... - The New York Times

1. First Amendment group sues Texas Governor and others over the state's TikTok ban on official devices  The Associated Press
2. Knight Institute files lawsuit against Texas's TikTok ban  CNN
3. First Amendment org challenges restrictions on TikTok at Texas universities  TechCrunch

See more here:
First Amendment group sues Texas Governor and others over the state's TikTok ban on official devices - The Associated Press

1A Remaking America: The First Amendment And LGBTQ Rights More than 20 states across the country have public accommodation laws to prevent businesses from discriminating against customers based on things like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

But a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could put these protections at risk.

Last month, in a 6-to-3 decision, the court ruled in it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment for Lorie Smith, the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis, to have to create a message she opposes in this case, a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

The case raises big questions about what counts as creative speech under the First Amendment and also about questions about the fate of anti-discrimination protections across the country.

We unpack the implications of the Supreme Court decision with legal and First Amendment scholars.

This show is part of our Remaking America collaboration with six public radio stations around the country. Remaking America is funded in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find out how to connect with us by visiting our website.

Television news crews report from outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of its term in Washington, DC. Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images hide caption

Television news crews report from outside the U.S. Supreme Court on the last day of its term in Washington, DC.

More than 20 states across the country have public accommodation laws to prevent businesses from discriminating against customers based on things like race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

But a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could put these protections at risk.

Lorie Smith, the plaintiff in 303 Creative v. Elenis, wanted to expand her graphic design business in Littleton, Colorado. But she said she would refuse to design a page for a same-sex couple's wedding if asked. She worried that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act would force her to do so.

Last month, in a 6-to-3 decision, the court ruled in Smith's favor, saying that it would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment for her to have to create a message she opposes in this case, a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

The case raises big questions about what counts as creative speech under the First Amendment and also about questions about the fate of anti-discrimination protections across the country.

We unpack the implications of the Supreme Court decision with legal and First Amendment scholars. We also hear from the mayor of Louisville, Kentucky. The city has had a fairness ordinance protecting LGBTQ people since 1999.

This show is part of our Remaking America collaboration with six public radio stations around the country. Remaking America is funded in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Like what you hear? Find more of our programs online.

Read more:
1A Remaking America: The First Amendment And LGBTQ Rights : 1A - NPR

[A] decision in petitioners favor . . . would permit the First Amendment to supersede laws of general application that are important for our society to function, without advancing First Amendment goals. . . . Allowing 303 Creative to discriminate on the basis of the First Amendments protections would necessarily open the door to conflicts between such expressive interests and other laws of general application, unsettling the law in multiple ways.

Amicus brief filed on behalf of Vincent Blasi, Erwin Chemerinsky, Burt Neuborne, Robert Post, Kermit Roosevelt, Amanda Shanor, Geoffrey R. Stone and Laura Weinrib.

Justice Neil Gorsuchs majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) will live on in infamy in many liberal minds. This 6-3 opinion is one of the latest in a predictable line of conservative rulings designed to upend liberal precedents, this time those concerning LGBTQ rights. For example, consider what Laurence Tribe and Jeffrey B. Abramson said about the matter:

By twisting free speech into a license to discriminate, the [303 Creative] court has now carved out an exception from public accommodations law for businesses that recast their services in ways that highlight their expressive features. But the court offers no workable principle to cabin that exception in any meaningful way. . . . The hostility of a majority of justices to the2015 Supreme Court caseprotecting same-sex marriage is so open that, until they can followJustice Clarence Thomass call to overrule that decision, they are determined to strip same-sex couples of civil rights protections that other lawfully married couples enjoy.

303 Creative also marks yet another liberal breakaway from what was long thought to be one of the mainstays of liberal constitutionalism the free speech principle championed by the liberal likes of Brandeis and Brennan and hailed in the scholarly works of Emerson and Kalven. But those days are ending as more and more liberals view the Roberts Courts jurisprudence as a way, in Justice Elena Kagans dissenting words, of weaponizing the First Amendment.

More than 20 states, including New York and California, have anti-discrimination laws like Colorados. By creating a free speech carve-out from these laws, the courts ruling threatens to obliterate a vital tool in efforts to protect the L.G.B.T.Q. community at a time when it faces hatred and violence.

Aaron Tang, The New York Times (July 1)

See also: Ben Clements, The Roberts Court twisted the First Amendment into a tool of discrimination, The Hill (July 8).

For a supportive take on Justice Gorsuchs opinion, see: Darpana Sheth, Myth-busting reactions to the Supreme Courts decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, FIRE (July 7).

See also: John Eastman and Anthony T. Caso, amicus brief filed in support of petitioners

If one had to pinpoint a time when the left began to lose faith in First Amendment free speech absolutism (or near absolutism), it might have been with the Nazis marching in Skokie cases (Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party (Ill., 1978) and Collin v. Smith (7th Cir., 1978). That controversy certainly divided the ACLUs membership. See: When the Nazis Came to Skokie, Philippa Strum (1999).

If one had to pinpoint a time when the right began to gain faith in the First Amendment, it might have been with the commercial speech cases, especially ones such as 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996) (see e.g. Thomas, J., concurring). (Contrast C. Edwin Baker, The First Amendment and Commercial Speech, Indiana Law Journal (2009).) There were also cases such as Harris v. Quinn (2014) and Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (2018) in which the First Amendment was used to disempower labor unions.

The left took its leave when the free speech principle trumped the anti-discrimination principle, and when libertarian values redefined the political power dynamic. By the same token, the right openly embraced the free speech principle when it served the interests of laissez-faire capitalism.

The equality principle of free speech (once championed in Police Dept. of the City of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)), has fallen on difficult times when one considers some of the First Amendment gay rights cases the Court has handed down: e.g., Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), and more recently 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) and Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (2022). For many liberals, the First Amendment is a device by which conservative jurists can dismantle the Courts landmark LGBTQ rulings.

On the other side of the ideological divide and to conservatives delight the libertarian tenet of the First Amendment has done quite well when one considers certain commercial speech cases (e.g., Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002); and Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. (2011)) and virtually all the campaign finance cases (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC (2010); and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). Here too, such rulings have been met with liberal outrage.

More, of course, needs to be said on the liberal abandonment and the conservative endorsement of 303 Creative-like rulings (both on the expression and religion sides), but that is the stuff of forthcoming posts so stay tuned! rklc

Related

That was the title of Susanna Granieris post over at First Amendment Watch. Here are a few excerpts:

A federal judge in Louisiana granted a preliminary injunction July 4 blocking the Biden administration and key government agencies from communicating with major social media platforms about user content the sites host a ruling which could result in major First Amendment implications.

Theorder, written by Judge Terry A. Doughty a Donald Trump appointee upends the governments efforts to curtail troublesome speech online. The mis- and disinformation on major platforms grew exponentially during the 2016 presidential election and the coronavirus pandemic, which led the government to regularly communicate its concerns with major social media platforms that hosted the speech of millions of Americans.

[ . . . ]

Judge Doughtys ruling raised concern among some First Amendment scholars. The opinion includes facts that raise serious constitutional questions,tweetedJameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.But his order would insulate social media [companies] from criticism, not just coercion. He should narrow the order, or the appeals court should do it for him, he wrote.

[ . . . ]

Lyrissa Lidsky, First Amendment lawyer and professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, said it appears the government may have gone beyond jawboning to implicit coercion of social media companies as a way to censor disfavored content.

Some of that content may be disinformation, but the danger is that some of it is simply content the government doesnt like or finds embarrassing, she said. The litigation is important as a tool to uncover the extent to which the government is pressuring, and perhaps coercing, censorship by the social media companies that provide millions of us with access to the digital public square. However, Lidsky added, Judge Doughtys gag order on government actors may reach too far in response to the threat.

This from Eric Boehm over at Reason:

Whether [any] systemic pressure campaign amounts to a violation of Americans' free speech rights is something courts still have to decide. It's not a straightforward issue, as government officials also have a free speech right to communicate with moderators at social media companies. When and how that communication becomes an attempt at chilling free speechbacked by an implicit threat of state action if the social media companies don't complyare complex questions, and Tuesday's injunction is far from the final say in the matter.

This from Leah Litman and Laurence H. Tribe in Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy for Just Security (July 5):

While there are, in theory, interesting questions about when and how the government can try to jawbone private entities to remove speech from their platforms, this decision doesnt grapple with any of them . . .

Invoking the First Amendment, a single district court judge effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government and social media companies about online speech and potentially lethal misinformation. Compounding that error, the district court crafted its injunction to apply to myriad high-ranking officials in the Biden administration, raising grave separation of powers concerns. And equally troubling is how the courts order, which prevents the government from even speaking with tech companies about their content moderation policies, deals a huge blow to vital government efforts to harden U.S. democracy against threats of misinformation.

Related

Of all the distortions and paranoia that Tucker Carlson promoted on his since-canceled Fox News program, one looms large: a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man working as a covert government agent incited the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol to sabotage and discredit former President Donald J. Trump and his political movement.

Whats known about the man a two-time Trump voter namedRay Epps is that he took part in demonstrations in Washington that day and the night before . . .

Federal prosecutors have not charged Mr. Epps with a crime, focusing instead on the more than1,000 other demonstratorswho acted violently or were trespassing in the Capitol. The Justice Departments sprawling investigation into the attack remains open, however, and Mr. Epps could still be indicted.

Yet for more than 18 months, Mr. Carlson insisted that the lack of charges against Mr. Epps could mean only one thing: that he was being protected because he was a secret government agent. There was no rational explanation, Mr. Carlson told his audience, why this mysterious figure who helped stage-manage the insurrection had not been charged. He repeated Mr. Eppss name over and over in nearly 20 episodes imprinting it on the minds of his viewers.

[ . . . ]

Now lawyers representing Mr. Epps and his wife are proceeding with plans to sue Fox News for defamation. We informed Fox in March that if they did not issue a formal on-air apology that we would pursue all available avenues to protect the Eppses rights, said Michael Teter, a lawyer for Mr. Epps who sent the network acease-and-desistletter asking for an on-air apology and a retraction.

[S]tatements impugning the integrity of a judge may not be punished unless they are capable of being proved true or false; statements of opinion are protected by the First Amendment unless they imply a false assertion of fact.

Judge Alex Kozinski (1995)

This case [involving criticism of a judge] presents a textbook example of an opinion that is protected by the First Amendment . . .

Attorney Alex Kozinski, 2023, brief on behalf of Petitioner Pavone

The case is In the Matter of Benjamin Laurence Pavone (Cal., #S-279851). It is a bar discipline case that tests the limits of how far a lawyer can go in criticizing a judge. Petitioner, Benjamin Pavone, is being represented by retired Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski.

The issues raised in the case are:

Note: The Ninth Circuit Yagman majority opinion the Petitioner relies upon was authored by then-Judge Alex Kozinski. (Some of those who signed an amicus brief filed by American Jewish Congress-Pacific Southwest Region and Article 19 in support of the petitioner were: Ben Margolis, Erwin Chemerinsky, Susan R. Estrich, Barry A. Fisher, Catherine L. Fisk, Stanley Fleishman, Fred Okrand, Robert M. Ornstein, and Eugene Volokh.)

Here are a few excerpts from Kozinskis First Amendment arguments to the state high court:

First things first. The language just recounted from Petitioners opening and reply briefs is bad writing and poor advocacy. No one long in the business of persuading appellate courts believes youre likely to get very far hurling rotten vegetables at the decision-maker or the decision-maker's colleagues. Petitioners writing was not a persuasive legal argument calculated to obtain the fees he believed he deserved. Indeed, it may be the worst advocacy among the thousands of briefs counsel has read over the years.

But Petitioner was not charged with incompetence and he hurt only himself: As any reasonable person would have expected, the Court of Appeal rejected Petitioners argument and affirmed the denial of fees and costs, whereas a more temperate brief may have prevailed.

The question presented by this petition is whether casting doubt on the intellectual

integrity of a judicial officer, after disclosing the facts on which those doubts are based, may be the subject of disciplinary sanctions. The Ninth Circuit long ago held that, as a matter of First Amendment law, such conduct could not be grounds for discipline. (Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of California v. Yagman (9th Cir. 1995)).

Uvalde school district officials banned Adam Martinez from school property and school board meetings for two years.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

The Uvalde school district has lifted its ban on a concerned parent after the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression stood up for his right to speak out at school board meetings.

The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School DistrictbannedAdam Martinez, a father of two students, from district property for two years for questioning the qualifications of a recently hired school district police officer. In May, FIRE sent aletterthreatening to sue if the district did not lift the unconstitutional ban. Yesterday, the school districtconfirmedit is lifting the ban and Martinez is allowed on school property once again.

All Ive ever wanted was to speak my mind and be a voice for my community, said Martinez. Im thankful to FIRE for taking my case, and look forward to holding our local leaders accountable.

FIRE was ready and willing to sue to protect Mr. Martinezs First Amendment rights, said FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. Thankfully, the Uvalde school district backed down and lifted its unconstitutional ban.

The case of New York Times v. Sullivan set a vital standard in libel law. Could the clash between Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems dismantle itand at what cost?

The libel lawsuit filed in March 2021 by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News, over the networks coverage of claims that the company had rigged the 2020 election, was settled this spring, but the case may soon become an artifact of a vanished era. In pretrial skirmishing, the two sides agreed on this much: the law of libel is governed by the Supreme Courts 1964 decision inNew York Timesv.Sullivan. In the last legal arguments before the jury was to be seated, Rodney A. Smolla, one of the lawyers for Dominion, calledSullivan the landmark decision that is the genesis for all of our modern First Amendment principles involving defamation law. Erin E. Murphy, a lawyer for Fox, likewise said that the principle governing the case starts inSullivan. But the emboldened conservative majority on the Supreme Court, having dispatchedRoev.Wadeto the dustbin of overruled precedents, may now targetSullivanfor the same treatment. Such a change would have fundamental consequences for both those who speak and those who are spoken about.

Its a fitting time, then, to take a fresh look atSullivan how it came about and what it means today. InActual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press inNew York Timesv.Sullivan,Samantha Barbas, a professor at the University of Buffalo School of Law, tells the improbable story of the advertisement that gave rise to the case and the decision that Justice William J. Brennan ultimately wrote. Its a tale that has been told before notably in books by Anthony Lewis and Aimee Edmondson but Barbas has a distinctive and relevant argument.

Related

Thanks to the First Amendment, Americans enjoy a rare privilege: the constitutional right to lie. And although controversial, they should continue to enjoy this right.

When commentators and politicians discuss misinformation, they often repeat five words: "fire in a crowded theater." Though governments can, if they choose, attempt to ban harmful lies, propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, how effective will their efforts really be? Can they punish someone for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and would those lies then have any less impact? How do governments around the world respond to the spread of misinformation, and when should the US government protect the free speech of liars?

InLiar in a Crowded Theater, law professor Jeff Kosseff addresses the pervasiveness of lies, the legal protections they enjoy, the harm they cause, and how to combat them. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections and the January 6, 2021, insurrection on the Capitol building, Kosseff argues that even though lies can inflict huge damage, US law should continue to protect them.Liar in a Crowded Theaterexplores both the history of protected falsehoods and where to go from here.

Drawing on years of research and thousands of pages of court documents in dozens of cases from Alexander Hamilton's enduring defense of free speech to Eminem's victory in a lawsuit claiming that he stretched the truth in a 1999 song Kosseff illustrates not only why courts are reluctant to be the arbiters of truth but also why they're uniquely unsuited to that role. Rather than resorting to regulating speech and fining or jailing speakers, he proposes solutions that focus on minimizing the harms of misinformation. If we want to seriously address concerns about misinformation and other false speech, we must finally exit the crowded theater.

Last Constitution Day, we traced the origins of free speech in the United States from colonial America to the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. In this episode, we jump forward to the antebellum period, where abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, John Quincy Adams, William Lloyd Garrison, and Angelina Grimk? clashed with pro-slavery advocates over the monumental issue of slavery.

Journalist and author Damon Root, FIRE Senior Fellow Jacob Mchangama, and Washington and Lee University professor Lucas Morel join the show this week to explore how free speech and the free press became the essential tools in the abolitionists' campaign for freedom.

Cases decided

Review granted

Cert granted and case remanded

Pending petitions

State action

Qualified immunity

Immunity under Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act

Liability Anti-Terrorism Act

Section 230 immunity

Review denied

Previous FAN

FAN 385.1: Stephen Rohde, Devil's Advocate: Why is a prominent ethics professor defending John Eastman on First Amendment grounds?

This article is part ofFirst Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the articles author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or of Mr. Collins.

Read the original:
Abandoned love: The left's move away from the right's First Amendment First Amendment News 386 - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education