On Wednesday night, the peaceful protest of a speaking event by alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley turned violent.  Led by masked rioters, who the UC Berkeley administration claims are not students, protesters bashed in ATMs and windows, set fires, and punched people. The riots appear to be a coordinated effort by the antifa (anti fascist and anti capitalist) movement, whose slogan is resist, to shut down Milo, a gross, unnuanced, racist troll who has signaled out students for harassment, but who does not advocate for violence against anyone.

Although Berkeley’s Chancellor recognized that, as a public institution committed to promoting challenging exchanges of ideas, it must allow Milo to speak, the event was cancelled due to the destructive nature of the protests.  The cancellation of Milo’s speaking event at Berkeley, and a previous cancellation at UC Davis, demonstrate a loss of free speech norms that is gaining momentum in this country, on both the right and the left.

Continue reading “The Berkeley Protests and the Loss of Free Speech Norms” →

Last night, after Judge Neil Gorsuch was nominated to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, many cited Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as a reason to oppose his nomination.  Judge Gorsuch signed onto a Tenth Circuit opinion, affirmed by the Supreme Court, holding that closely held for-profit corporations need not follow the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide health insurance coverage for contraception that the owners’ believe facilitate abortions.

Because I have taught Law and Religion, and because I am now teaching Insurance, I want to comment on the case that joins both subjects.  I understand the opposition to the result in Hobby Lobby.  However, as Judge Gorsuch alluded to last night, results should not be the primary way in which we judge whether an opinion is correct.  Below is a quick and dirty primer on why Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning is justifiable.

Continue reading “Why Hobby Lobby Should Not Be Disqualifying for Judge Gorsuch (i.e. it’s not as bad as it seems)” →

My views about the proper role of a law professor (in and out of the classroom) were well set prior to the election of President Trump.  My views haven’t changed completely, but have adjusted somewhat in light of Trump’s unique threat to rule of law values.   I would like to share the evolution of my views to work through them in a public way.  Although many use the phrase “not just academic” to disparage a particular mode of abstract thinking, we must continue to establish, question, and preserve important ideals and conceptual constructs even when human lives (and precisely because human lives) are affected by those abstract ruminations.

Continue reading ““Academic” Thoughts During Seriously Troubled Times” →

Below is an email I sent to the Scientists’ March on Washington, connecting free speech to science.  Some commenters on the March’s webpage expressed the belief that science should be used to advance particular ideals, values, or causes, and I hope the March doesn’t echo that view.  Science, like free speech, must remain a process-based concept in order to retain its value.

“Dear Organizers of the Scientists’ March On Washington,

Continue reading “Free Speech, Science, and Ideology” →

If America were a reality show, the Trump Presidency would be off to an exciting start. Although raucous displays make for good television, they don’t necessarily make for good governance. During Trump’s first week in office, we saw some good and some bad omens for the fate of free speech values under a Trump Administration.

Continue reading “Women’s Marches, Press Showdowns, and Punching Nazis: First Amendment Values at the Beginning of the Trump Administration” →

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a case about whether a federal statute barring registration of racially offensive trademarks violates the First Amendment.  For background and legal analysis on the case, I have written a blog series, which starts here.  Because the Justices framed the issues in this case so differently, this oral argument post will detail the views and concerns of each Justice, Justice by Justice.  I will also address how the attorneys for each side handled those concerns, and who I thought won over each Justice.

Continue reading “Oral Argument in Lee v. Tam: Justice by Justice” →

Because I teach, write, and care about First Amendment issues, I have come to appreciate more deeply the importance of the media’s role in fostering two of the major values underlying the First Amendment.  The media provides necessary information that allows citizens to participate more fully and rationally in our democracy (the participatory self governance theory of free speech).  More broadly, the media provides necessary information on which Americans can form opinions about any number of issues (the marketplace of ideas in the search for truth theory of free speech).  Unfortunately, at a time when the media’s role is most critical, more and more Americans have become cynical about the media.

If Americans don’t trust the media to report stories accurately and fairly, its critical role will be undermined.  The proliferation of actual “fake news” hasn’t helped this cynicism, nor has the increasing use of the concept of “fake news” to discredit stories one disfavors.  I would like this blog post to begin a conversation on how to restore faith in the media, by which I mean – how can more Americans embrace mainstream journalism as its source of credible information on topics relevant to public life and important private matters?

Continue reading “Neutrality, Partisanship, and Restoring Faith in the Media” →

Part Five:  The Final Pre-Argument Analysis

On January 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lee v. Tam, the case that will decide whether the federal government’s denial of trademark registration to disparaging trademarks violates the First Amendment.

This case is extremely important — it will resolve the balance between free speech rights and government prerogative to deny benefits to those whose speech it finds disagreeable.  The outcome of this case will directly affect The Slants, the band whose trademark registration was denied because it was deemed offensive to those of Asian heritage, and Washington’s football team, whose trademark registration was cancelled as disparaging to Native Americans.  The case will also resonate more broadly to implicate any government program or government benefit where the government wishes to disassociate itself from objectionable/racist speech.

For an overview of the facts and legal issues in this case, see Part One of this series here.  In Part Two, here, I discuss the argument by Petitioner Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that the government should be permitted to create an optional government program without endorsing racial slurs.  In Part Three, here, I present some of the best arguments in favor of the PTO, articulated in an amicus brief written by law professors who study trademark law.  In Part Four, here, I disagree with these law professors and explain why trademark law’s disparagement clause likely amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

In this post, I will present some of the best arguments in favor of Respondent Simon Tam, a member of The Slants, and some of the concerns with those arguments.

Continue reading “Lee v. Tam: Offensive Trademarks at the Supreme Court (A Series)” →

2016 hasn’t been a great year for the Supreme Court.  February saw the passing of Justice Scalia, whose self-professed mission was to interpret the law using a principled, apolitical methodology that respected the role of an independent judiciary in a democracy.  And when President Obama attempted to replace Justice Scalia, Republican Senators dishonored Justice Scalia’s judicial philosophy.  The Senate Judiciary Committee cynically refused to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland, a well-qualified, moderate nominee, so that Republican-appointees could continue to constitute a majority of the Supreme Court.  With a new President-elect who displays an apparent lack of knowledge of constitutional law, the Supreme Court’s legitimacy as a nonpartisan institution that safeguards our constitutional rights is now more important than ever.

One bright spot in this bleak SCOTUS year is a new podcast that covers the Court expertly and candidly.  Ian Samuel and Dan Epps, both former Supreme Court clerks, recently launched First Mondays.  This podcast, inter alia, reviews grants of certiorari, discusses oral arguments, and makes predictions about both the outcomes of cases and which Justice will be assigned to author the majority opinion for each case.  Samuel and Epps present both sides of each case charitably, and allow the listener to understand the import of the outcome of a case and the nuances of the doctrine.  They share nuggets about litigant strategy and provide tips about the Justices’ thinking while never allowing the listener to forget that legal reasoning matters.  They host guests who are experts in their fields and make areas of law as abstruse as Johnson retroactivity and bankruptcy settlements scintillating.  They banter about securities fraud.

Continue reading “Thank Goodness It’s First Mondays” →

Part Four: Is the Disparagement Clause Impermissible Viewpoint-Based Discrimination?

(The previous entries about Lee v. Tam, in order, are here, here, and here.)

This month, the Chinatown Dance-Rock band headlining the Lee v. Tam case released a song about its upcoming battle at the Supreme Court.  The band is fighting for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to allow its name, The Slants, to receive federal trademark registration.  The PTO denied registration based on the fact that the term “Slants” is offensive to those of Asian heritage, despite the band’s desire to re-appropriate the term and undermine racial stereotypes.

To The Slants, this case is about the impropriety of the PTO’s use of trademark’s disparagement clause, which denies trademark registration to an applicant whose brand is racially disparaging.  However, the case has broader implications.  At issue is whether the disparagement clause itself violates the First Amendment.  The case will create precedent about when the government can deny trademark registration simply because it deems a trademark offensive to a relevant group.  Ultimately, this is civil liberties case about whether the government can deny benefits to groups so that the government can disassociate itself from what it deems racist messages.

Because this is a First Amendment case, much of the case turns on whether the disparagement clause is classified as a content-based or viewpoint-based restriction on speech.  This content/viewpoint distinction matters because, as mentioned in Part Three, the government is never allowed to discriminate based on the viewpoint of speech unless the speech is classified as the government’s own speech.  The government is allowed to separate speech based on content in the distribution of benefits as part of a benefit program, which is distinct from government speech itself.  However, if the Supreme Court deems the disparagement clause not part of a government program but a direct restriction on speech (as the Federal Circuit did), then the disparagement clause cannot discriminate on the basis of either content or viewpoint unless the speech restriction is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest, the strict scrutiny test.  Regardless, in no case other than government speech can the government target viewpoint as a basis for speech preference.

Continue reading “Lee v. Tam: Offensive Trademarks at the Supreme Court (A Series)” →