DiscoverFedSoc Events
FedSoc Events
Claim Ownership

FedSoc Events

Author: The Federalist Society

Subscribed: 2,578Played: 7,330
Share

Description

The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. This podcast feed contains audio files of Federalist Society panel discussions, debates, addresses, and other events related to law and public policy. Additional audio and video can be found at https://fedsoc.org/commentary.
701 Episodes
Reverse
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The final panel explored "School Choice in Action."In recent years, school choice has to moved beyond an abstract topic for free-market theorists and constitutional scholars. Today, school-choice programs — public and private — and similar education-reform policies aimed at increasing choice and competition are up and running the country. Speakers at this panel — leading students, critics, and evaluators of school-coice programs — will discuss candidly the available data and empirical evidence relating to the choice programs, and will also survey and evaluate the different and local programs. Featuring:Roberta Holt, Director, Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring ProgramAnn Payne, Founder, Aurora AcademyProf. John Witte, University of WisconsinBrother Bob Smith, President, Messemer High SchoolDr. Myron Lieberman, Education Policy InstituteAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice." The penultimate panel covered "School Choice: The Next Civil Rights Crusade?"School choice is more than an education-reform porposal. To many supporters of vouchers and charter schools, these policy innovations are crucial elements in the effort to vindicate the civil and political ights of low-income parents and members of racial minorities. At the same time, many school choice critics suggest that vouchers will constitute a set-back for public-school integration. Speakers at this panel— civil-rights leaders, school-choice activists, and academics— will discuss these problems, and also explore the connection between school choice and parents' First Amendment freedoms, as well as the historical and consitutional tradition of viewing a well-educated citizenry as the key to democratic and republican government and education as the key to meaningful exercise of civil rights. Featuring:Introduction Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & RosenthalProf. Joseph Vitteritti, New York UniversityJennifer Grossman, Director of Education, CatoMichael Meyers, President, New York Civil Rights CoalitionClint Bolick, Cofounder, Institute for JusticeAs always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.
The Federalist Society's Student Division &Columbus School of Law Student Chapter presentFeddie Night Festivus:Blackman vs. Everybody!FeaturingUnprecedented Feats of Jurisprudential StrengthThis event will be livestreamed via YouTubeThursday, December 23, 20218:00 PM ETFeaturing:Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of LawFeddie Night Fights is a series of online events hosted by the Student Division and a rotating Student Chapter each month.
On March 26, 1999, the Federalist Society co-sponsored the Stranahan National Issues Forum with the University of Toledo College of Law. The title of the conference was "Education Reform at the Crossroads: Politics, the Constitution, and the Battle over School Choice," and featured a keynote address by Linda Chavez.Featuring:Introductory Remarks: Ted Cruz, Attorney, Cooper, Carvin & RosenthalAward: Corey Swanson, Cofounder, Stranahan National Issues ForumIntroduction: Dean Albert Quick, The University of Toledo College of LawLinda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The conference concluded with the annual Hon. Robert H. Bork Memorial Lecture, featuring remarks by Judge Laurence H. Silberman on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."Judge Laurence H. Silberman will be delivering remarks on "The Job of Attorney General—A Historical Perspective."Featuring:Hon. Laurence H. Silberman, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy.""Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success. By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics. However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?The panel will address two areas with this as background: The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused? Featuring:Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular EvolutionProf. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law SchoolMs. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteModerator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference featured the thirteenth annual Rosenkranz Debate.RESOLVED: Concentrated corporate power is a greater threat to individual freedom than government powerFeaturing:Mr. John Allison, Executive in Residence, Wake Forest University School of Business; Former President and CEO, Cato Institute; Former President and CEO, BB&TMr. Ashley Keller, Partner, Keller Lenkner LLCModerator: Hon. Douglas H. Ginsburg, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Second Amendment: Next Steps in the Unfolding Litigation Battle."The U.S. Supreme Court famously decided many Second Amendment cases in its Heller and McDonald cases. Yet much remains uncertain. In its first significant Second Amendment case in ten years, the Court is poised to decide the extent of citizen rights to carry firearms outside the home. Our panel will discuss the oral argument (scheduled for November 3), the merits, the procedure, as well as possible outcomes.Featuring:Mr. Jonathan Lowy, Vice President, Legal & Chief Counsel, Legal, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun ViolenceProf. Mark W. Smith, Senior Fellow of Law and Public Policy and Presidential Scholar, The King’s CollegeMr. David H. Thompson, Managing Partner, Cooper & Kirk PLLCModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Private Power and Eminent Domain."Since the Founding, the extent to which the public power of eminent domain may be used by, or for the benefit of, private parties, has been a subject of intense debate. Time and time again, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered cases testing the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation." U.S. Const., amend. V. Over 15 years ago, in the landmark case of Kelo v. New London, the Court upheld the exercise of eminent domain to transfer private property from private individuals to other private entities. The decision – controversial from the outset – prompted deeper questions about the extent to which the Constitution allows for eminent domain for "public purposes" even where the action advances the economic interests of private parties over others. But how lasting is this precedent? In a recent dissent from the denial of certiorari in Eychaner v. Chicago, three justices voted to revisit Kelo, two of them expressly calling to overrule it. Since Kelo, the U.S. Supreme Court has continued to review eminent domain and other cases, raising significant property rights concerns – often involving complex questions at the intersection of private and public power.Most recently, in the 2020-2021 term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard three cases dealing with the intersection of private and public power in the eminent domain context: Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, where the Court held that a state regulation allowing union organizers to enter private property constituted a taking requiring just compensation;PennEast Pipeline v. New Jersey, where the Court dealt with the legality of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) delegation of eminent domain powers to a private pipeline company; andPakdel v. San Francisco, where the Court continued to reduce procedural hurdles for inverse condemnation claims (expanding upon a prior decision just two years ago in Knick v. Township of Scott). For this panel, a distinguished lineup of speakers will discuss the intersection between public and private power in the eminent domain context. The panel will focus on eminent domain’s history, the implications of originalism for understanding the extent and use of that power, recent Supreme Court rulings on these topics, and the likely subjects and issues for review in future cases, among other things. As part of this discussion, the panel will illuminate the constitutional, legal, economic, and philosophic principles and considerations that help to inform perspectives on this important topic of public versus private power in the realm of property rights.Featuring:Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Former Solicitor General, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Roderick Hills, William T. Comfort, III Professor of Law, New York University School of LawMr. Robert J. McNamara, Senior Attorney, Institute for JusticeMr. Joshua Thompson, Director of Legal Operations, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel discussed "ABA Law School Accreditation Standards."For many years, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the Council of the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar as the accrediting organization for law schools. The importance of that function cannot be overstated. For nearly every state, a J.D. degree from an ABA-accredited law school is required to practice law. To become accredited, a law school must comply with the standards contained in the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. In May 2021, the Council of the ABA Section proposed a set of accreditation standards that, among other things, would require law schools to "take effective actions that, in their totality, demonstrate progress in (1) Diversifying the students, faculty, and staff; and (2) Creating an inclusive and equitable environment for students, faculty, and staff." An interpretation of that provision stated, "The requirement of a constitutional provision that purports to prohibit consideration of race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, or military status in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance." The school would have to show "effective actions and progress . . . by means other than those prohibited by the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions." In addition, law schools must "provide training and education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism: (1) at the start of the program of legal education, and (2) at least once again before graduation." The Council has since withdrawn the proposal for further study, but it may reappear.Our panel of experts will discuss the degree to which the ABA’s proposed new policy represented a change from its prior practice; if it was a change, how it came about, including any arguments for or against it; whether it is justified and consistent with the accrediting role; and, if it is not, what steps, if any, might be appropriate to take.Featuring:Hon. Scott Bales, Former Chief Justice, Arizona Supreme CourtProf. John McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University Pritzker School of LawProf. Thomas D. Morgan, Oppenheim Professor Emeritus of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law SchoolMr. Daniel R. Thies, Shareholder, Webber & Thies, P.C.Moderator: Hon. Gregory Katsas, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final day of the conference commenced with showcase panel on "Corporate and Academic Management Today."The life of law school Deans and university administrators have always included responding to various demands from students and faculty. In recent years those demands include attacks on the school for failing to address racist behavior and patterns, sexual harassment and the mistreatment of gays and other minorities. Over the last couple of years those demands have significantly increased in quantity, volume and force. At the same time corporate management, especially across Fortune 500 companies, but by no means limited to them, have experienced similar pressures. Most recently, we're beginning to see pushback on behalf of outspoken students on free speech grounds, accused predators with due process claims, and others on equal protection grounds. How has management handled these pressures both in academia and in the corporate world? How should they? This roundtable includes those who have dealt with these issues—is some cases very recently and in others from a few years ago.Featuring:Mr. Richard Bagger, Partner and Executive Director, Christie 55 Solutions LLCDean David Schizer, Dean Emeritus & Harvey R. Miller Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolDr. Lee Burdette Williams, Executive Director, College Autism Network; Former Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Wheaton College; Former Dean of Students, University of ConnecticutProf. Robin Fretwell Wilson, Mildred Van Voorhis Jones Chair in Law, Director, Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois College of LawModerator: Hon. Michael Brennan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?".On September 11, 2001, at the age of 45 and at the height of her professional and personal life, Barbara K. Olson was murdered in the terrorist attacks against the United States as a passenger on the hijacked American Airlines flight that was flown into the Pentagon. The Federalist Society believes that it is most fitting to dedicate an annual lecture on limited government and the spirit of freedom to the memory of Barbara Olson. She had a deep commitment to the rule of law and understood well the relationship between respecting limits on government power and the preservation of freedom. And, significantly, Barbara Olson was an individual who never took freedom for granted in her own life, even in her final terrifying moments-her inspiring and energetic human spirit is a testament to what one can achieve in a world that places a premium on human freedom. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson delivered the first lecture in November 2001. The lecture series continued in following years with other notable individuals.Featuring:Hon. Theodore B. Olson, Partner, Gibson Dunn
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Originalism: Perspectives from the Bench."Many would agree that originalism is now a standard when it comes to judicial philosophy. On this panel, a variety of judges will discuss how they 'do' originalism while sitting on a case. Furthermore, they will provide their views on whether and how advocates can best brief and argue cases along originalist lines.Featuring:Hon. Edith Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitHon. Kevin Newsom, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitHon. Andrew Oldham, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth CircuitHon. Neomi Rao, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. CircuitModerator: Hon. John Nalbandian, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" This panel covered "China, Global Companies, and Human Rights."This panel will explore a suite of issues related to global companies that do business in China and the implications for national security, human rights, and the rule of law. Panelists will explore how companies that have supply chains or otherwise are active in China weigh human rights concerns (e.g., in Xinjiang or Hong Kong) against market access, as well as consider the dilemma companies face when they find themselves caught in the crossfire between U.S. and allies' human rights sanctions (e.g., Global Magnitsky) and Chinese retaliatory sanctions. Do American companies feel an obligation, apart from any legal mandates, to act in ways that advance U.S. national security or foreign policy objectives? With senior policymakers intently focused on these and related issues, is the private sector giving them sufficient attention?Featuring:Amb. Craig Allen, President, US-China Business Council; Former U.S. Ambassador to Brunei DarussalamAmb. Kelley Currie, Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s IssuesMr. John S. Jenkins, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, TE ConnectivityDr. Kori Schake, Senior Fellow and Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies, American Enterprise InstituteModerator: Hon. Carlos T. Bea, Senior Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel asked "Is Anyone Still Committed to Free Speech?".The Supreme Court in 1964 spoke of "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." That commitment has seemingly waned of late. Conservatives bemoan a new institutional "cancel culture" that chills heterodox views, with many now questioning limits on government’s ability to regulate the speech and associations of private parties like social-media platforms, corporations, and employers. Meanwhile, progressives complain that speech rights are, as one ACLU attorney put it, "more often a tool of the powerful than the oppressed" and should be subordinated to other values like equity, safety from harmful speech, and "anti-racism." Has something truly changed in recent years, and, if so, does it matter? Is the traditional view of free speech—freedom from government regulation—worth defending?Featuring:Mr. Mike Davis, President and Founder, Internet Accountability Project; Former Chief Counsel for Nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley; Founder, The Article III ProjectProf. Stanley Fish, Professor of Law, Florida International University College of Law; Floersheimer Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Cardozo LawProf. Joel Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law SchoolMs. Nicole Neily, President and Founder, Parents Defending EducationModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eight Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel covered "Federalism and Broadband Spending: Finding the Right Approach."The Covid-19 pandemic accelerated the desire for increased—indeed, universal—broadband access. This panel will focus on the infusion of federal and state funding into broadband networks. The panel will explore the ways in which states and private actors can play a role in ubiquitous deployment, the appropriate role of the FCC and other government agencies, including the USDA, NTIA, and DOE, how the FCC’s Universal Service programs can continue to facilitate deployment and adoption, and the terms that should accompany government funding distributed through states and federal agencies.Featuring:Hon. Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications CommissionHon. Eric Allan Koch, Senator and Chairman, Indiana Senate Utilities Committee, Indiana State SenateDr. Roslyn Layton, Senior Vice President, Strand ConsultModerator: Hon. Steven Menashi, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel discussed "Cancel Culture Comes to Financial Services."Under the Obama Administration’s Operation Choke Point initiative bank regulators sought to de-bank various legal industries such as payday lenders, firearms dealers, and home-based charities. Today, banks have increasingly acted on their own initiative to effectively operate a new voluntary form of Operation Choke Point. In January 2021, Florida’s Bank United closed Donald Trump’s personal bank account. Other banks have cut off others seemingly because of political views and have been pressured by activists to cut off funding to politically-disfavored industries, religious organizations, and others, effectively a new voluntary form of Operation Choke Point.Is this voluntary activity the free exercise of business judgment, or is it inappropriate response to external pressure? What kind of unintended consequences might occur where banks use their business to punish based on viewpoint? Could this behavior make banks into utilities subject to more financial regulation or even government actors carrying out government directives? What are the appropriate responses to "cancel culture" or "choke point" tactics in banking? What steps are appropriate either through governmental or private actions?Featuring:Prof. Christopher Peterson, John J. Flynn Endowed Professor of Law, University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of LawMr. Paul Watkins, Managing Director, Patomak Global PartnersProf. Todd J. Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; Senior Fellow, Cato InstituteModerator: Hon. Eric Murphy, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". This panel explored "Classrooms, Curricula, and the Law."Competing legal and cultural interests are at play in the push to implement critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion-based curricula at all levels from elementary school through higher education. Some argue that state bans are necessary to combat a divisive, stigmatizing, and arguably unlawful set of educational practices. Others take a libertarian approach, casting classrooms as marketplaces of ideas and criticizing proponents of CRT-bans as opponents of free speech. Still others praise these educational practices for raising greater awareness of American’s historical injustices, arguing that this is a necessary step towards a more equitable and inclusive society. In the tradition of the First Amendment, this convergence of issues leaves much room for a lively debate.Featuring:Prof. Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law SchoolMr. Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor, Newsweek; Research Fellow, Edmund Burke FoundationMs. Kimberly Hermann, General Counsel, Southeastern Legal FoundationMs. Letitia Todd Kim, Managing Director, Foundation Against Intolerance & RacismMr. Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in EducationModerator: Hon. Kyle Duncan, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The second day of the conference commenced with a showcase panel on "Private Control Over Public Discussion."Online platforms host a growing share of public discussion and debate. As private businesses, they have been free to develop and implement their own content moderation policies, free of First Amendment constraints. But as the amount of speech hosted on a few platforms has grown, the resulting concentration of control over that speech has sparked questions about the power of private companies to stifle lawful expression.As Justice Clarence Thomas recently noted, the Court soon will need to consider how existing legal doctrines apply to these highly concentrated, privately owned, digital platforms. Part of the solution, he suggests, might lie with common law doctrines like common carrier or public accommodation – doctrines that might permit regulation that limits the right of private platforms to exclude.But what of the First Amendment interests of the platforms themselves? Do these corporations have a protected expressive interest in declining to carry speech which is lawful but which they find objectionable? How should we think about the digital platform model – are they more like a communications network distributing information, more like publishers that actively curate content and associate themselves with hosted expression, or do they toggle back and forth?Finally, should the concentration of private power over speech change how we think about public and private threats to free expression? Private businesses are presumptively free to set terms and conditions for the use of their own property. Have digital platforms assumed a degree of control over public discourse, sufficient to alter that presumption? Is some form of regulation appropriate to protect against private threats to liberty? Or is government intrusion into private decision-making still the greater threat?Featuring:Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of LawProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
On November 11, 2021, The Federalist Society hosted its annual Antonin Scalia Memorial Dinner. This year featured an address by Senator Tom Cotton. Featuring: Hon. Tom Cotton, U.S. Senate, Arkansas Jennifer C. Braceras, Director, Independent Women's Law Center, Independent Women's Forum; Member, Federalist Society Board of Visitors; Former Member, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights * * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
loading
Comments (1)

Denny Gomez

A terrible example. I have seen video of lab tests of that Audi model that supported the claims of victims. Occam's Razor would lead anyone to consider the likelihood of a new technology to create unintended consequences MUCH more likely than that dozens and dozens of unrelated people around the world have engaged in wildly inexplicable behavior. Under what circumstances would someone crash into a whole row of cars? What would cause a person to accelerate into and through the rear wall of their own garage, over the body of their 10 year-old son? (This last happened in one case not mentioned here.) There's plenty of junk science presented in courts. This is a bad example.

Aug 26th
Reply
Download from Google Play
Download from App Store