On 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
- Susan Crawford, Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and author of Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age (Yale, 2013).
- Victor Pickard, Assistant Professor, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, and author of America’s Battle for Media Democracy (Cambridge, 2014).
- Jan Rybnicek, Attorney Advisor, Federal Trade Commission
- Matthew Del Nero, Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.
→ 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
- Christopher S. Yoo, “Wickard for the Internet? Network Neutrality after Verizon v. FCC,” Federal Communications Law Journal (2014, forthcoming)
- Adam Lamparello, “The Internet is the New Marketplace of Ideas: Why Riley v. California Supports Net Neutrality,” SSRN (Oct. 24, 2014)
→ Upcoming AALS Panel Discussion
- “Net Neutrality: Where does the FCC go from here?” (Hat tip to Ruthann Robson)
Petition to Watch
At its Conference on October 31, 2014, the Court will consider the following free speech petition:
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
- Scott H. Greenfield, “Horse-Trading Constitutional Rights,” Simple Justice, Oct. 25, 2014
- Richard G. Kopf, “The evisceration of Dahlia Lithwick,” Hercules & The Umpire, Oct. 25, 2014
- William Baude, “Free speech vs. voting rights and abortion rights,” Volokh Conspiracy, Oct. 25, 2014
Ibrahim Hooper
President of FIRE & Communications Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Debate Bill Maher’s planned commencement address at UC Berkeley
→ “Bastion of free speech, Cal Berkeley, petitioning to ban Bill Maher from speaking at graduation,” Twitchy Media, Oct. 28, 2014
→ Greg Lukianoff, the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and Ibrahim Hooper, the Communications Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, debate (see here)
Flaskback: Christopher Hitchens debates Ahmed Younis re Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (on YouTube)
Tribe on arguing 2 major First Amendment Cases
Over at SCOTUSblog, there is a video interview with Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe. In case you missed it, here is Tribe talking about two cases he argued: Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (1980) (public access to trials) and Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc. (1982) (the First Amendment Establishment Clause and a church’s power to control a liquor license). Check it out.
Article on Commercial Speech ruling of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights
Ronan O Fathaigh
→The Article: Ronan Ó Fathaigh, “Political Advertising Bans and Freedom of Expression,” Greek Public Law Journal (2014 Forthcoming)
→The Abstract: “In Animal Defenders International v. United Kingdom (2013), the 17-judge Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK’s ban on political advertising on television, as applied to an animal rights organisation, did not violate freedom of expression. The Court divided nine votes to eight, with the majority opinion abandoning the Court’s previous ‘strict scrutiny’ review, and laying down a new doctrine for reviewing political advertising bans. This article, first, examines the role the composition of the Grand Chamber played in the outcome of the case. Second, questions the basis of the new doctrine of review. And third, criticises the majority’s treatment of precedent.”
→ See also Wikipedia here for a chart of freedom of speech by country.
New & Forthcoming Books
- Péter Molnár, editor, Free Speech and Censorship Around the Globe (CEU Press, Nov. 20, 2014)
- Rorie Spill Solberg & Eric N. Waltenburg, The Media, the Court, and the Misrepresentation: The New Myth of the Court (Routledge, Dec. 4, 2014)
- Marcel Maussen & Ralph Grillo, editors, Regulation of Speech in Multicultural Societies (Routledge, March 2015)
- Robert J. Goldstein, “Little ‘Red Scares': Anti-Communism and Political Repression in the United States, 1921-1946 (May 5, 2015)
- Chris W. Bonneau & Damon M. Can, Voters’ Verdicts: Citizens, Campaigns, and Institutions in State Supreme Court Elections (University of Virginia Press, May 27, 2015)
Book Reviews
- Garrett Epps, “How the First Amendment applies to Jennifer Lawrence,” Columbia Journalism Review, Oct. 29, 2014
- Garry Wills, “How Lincoln Played the Press,” New York Review of Books (Nov. 6, 2014)
Nota Bene
- Frederick Schauer, “On the Distinction between Speech and Action,” SSRN (Oct. 24, 2014)
- Ruthann Robson, “Pennsylvania’s New Prisoner Speech Statute,” Constitutional Law Prof blog, Oct. 22, 2014 (new PA law here)
- Anders Walker, “A Lawyer Looks at Civil Disobedience: How Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Reframed the Civil Rights Revolution,” University of Colorado Law Review (forthcoming, 2014)
Edgardo Simone & bust of Justice Holmes
Scholarly Articles
- Sarah C. Haan, “The CEO and Hydraulics of Campaign Finance Reform,” Northwestern University Law Review (2014) (plus podcast interview here)
- Michael Kagan, “Speaker Discrimination: The Next Frontier of Free Speech,” Florida State University Law Review (forthcoming 2014)
- Phillip D. DiSanto, “Blurred Lines of Identity Crimes: Intersection of the First Amendment and Federal Identity Fraud,” Columbia Law Review (2014 forthcoming) (Student Note)
Volokh Watch
- “First Amendment vs. freedom of information law,” Volokh Conspiracy, Oct. 24, 2014
- “Falsely shouting ‘Ebola!’ on a crowded bus — the California criminal prohibition,” Volokh Conspiracy, Oct. 23, 2014
Quick Hits
- Lachlan Markay, “FEC Republicans Vow to Fight Regulations on Online Political Speech,” Washington Free Beacon, Oct. 28, 2014
- Catherine Sevcenko, “Campus free-speech zones are a right that Iowa State cannot restrict,” Iowa State Daily, Oct. 28, 2014
- Roger C. Memos, “Remembering the Committee for the First Amendment Flying to Washington to Support ‘Hollywood 19′,” Palm Desert Patch, Oct. 28, 2014
- Shayla Menville, “MSU reviewing free speech policies,” The Morehead News, Oct. 28, 2014
- Chip Gibbons, “Does Crying Terrorism Trump Free Speech?,” Truthout, Oct. 28, 2014
- Katherine Liu, “Can freedom of speech and inclusivity get along?,” The California Aggie, Oct. 28, 2014
- Andy Metzger, “Judge cites First Amendment in denying Falchuk’s debate order,” 22News, Oct. 27, 2014
- Amaka Uchegbu, “Conference brings together law and public health,” Yale Daily News, Oct. 20, 2014
Last FAN Column: #37 — “McCutcheon case produces flood of scholarly commentary — 41 works!“
Next FAN Column: #39 — Wednesday, November 5, 2014