“This freedom of communication is indispensable for the development and extension of scientific knowledge, a consideration of much practical import. In the first instance it must be guaranteed by law. But laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man may present his views without penalty, there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population. Such an ideal of external liberty can never be fully attained but must be sought unremittingly if scientific thought, and philosophical and creative thinking in general, are to be advanced as far as possible.”
— Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, 1954
First things first
The First Amendment binds the government, so the government has gotten rather good at punishing speech without restricting it. In Florida, we read this week, the state wildlife commission ran its critics’ names through a restricted database. At West Point, civilian professors were made to ask permission before publishing. None of this required a censorship law. In 1785, Madison warned us “to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.” He understood too well that the men who overturned the liberties of Rome were ever careful to keep the Senate in session as they did so.
Florida wildlife officials pulls records on critics
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officials used a restricted government database to pull personal information on more than 20 environmental activists, accessing retired turtle farmer Jim Watt’s records 34 times even though the agency says he was never under criminal investigation.
“Public meetings exist so citizens can question, challenge, and sometimes anger the officials who exercise power over them,” writes Isabelle Brito. “That process breaks down when people have to wonder whether criticism will invite government scrutiny.”
Below the fold
Public employers have had to cough up $4 million and counting for firing workers over posts about Charlie Kirk, framing online backlash as workplace “disruption.”
A federal judge barred West Point from requiring civilian professors to get approval for outside speech.
A federal judge refused to block the firing of three Stars and Stripes staffers who were punished for defending the paper’s editorial independence, saying their speech was made as government employees, not private citizens.
Jimmy Kimmel says ABC will not broadcast his interview with Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico because of FCC threats over political guest bookings, so the interview will instead appear on YouTube.
University of Washington will pay $600,000 to settle computer science professor Stuart Reges’ case after a court held the school violated his rights by punishing him for parodying an indigenous land acknowledgment.
Around the world
Australia’s most senior public servants are urging the government to stop politicians from editing and sharing clips of parliamentary hearings on social media, arguing that viral excerpts can expose officials to “harmful” comments. As Sarah McLaughlin explains, “Ridiculing bureaucrats who make and enforce public policy, and are often well-paid in the process, is not a subversion of the democratic process. It is a component of it.”
By the numbers
261 schools, 63,000 students, one major trend. This week, FIRE released its annual College Free Speech Rankings. Chicago takes first for the third time in seven years. NYU takes last, with Washington, Texas State, Northeastern, and Rutgers–New Brunswick keeping it company at the bottom. The national average is the best score in seven years, but still a D-. That’s 121 Fs against 24 schools managing a C or better. UC Davis is the comeback kid, going from 252 to 24, the biggest jump of the year. Harvard also came roaring back, from 245 to 71.
Worth a listen
The Blessings of Liberty explores constitutional history, Supreme Court debates, and the “American Idea,” hosted by bestselling author and constitutional scholar Jeffrey Rosen.
In this episode, award-winning journalist Damon Root joins to discuss his most recent book, Emancipation War: The Fall of Slavery and the Coming of the Thirteenth Amendment. In Emancipation War, Root chronicles the wide-ranging movement against slavery — consisting of white and Black visionaries operating both inside and outside the halls of power, fighting both on and off the battlefield — that made the Constitution’s antislavery Thirteenth Amendment possible.
So to Speak takes an uncensored look at the world of free expression through the law, philosophy, and stories that define free speech — hosted by FIRE’s Nico Perrino.
In this episode, Nico explores the First Amendment’s original meaning and what originalism can — and can’t — tell us about its free speech clause. Joining to discuss are Stanford Law professor Jud Campbell, author of Natural Rights and the First Amendment, and NYU professor of journalism Stephen Solomon, the founding editor of First Amendment Watch and the author of Revolutionary Dissent.
Today in history with Sheridan Macy
On Sept. 13, 1977, ABC premiered Soap, a prime-time send-up of daytime soaps that took on homosexuality, religion, organized crime, cults, mental illness, and race. A leaked ABC memo flagged the worrying bits: an openly gay character with a football-player boyfriend, a priest who wanted to swap communion wafers for Oreos, and an affair with a Jesuit that produced a pregnancy and an exorcism.
Religious groups mobilized before anyone had seen an episode. The Catholic Church, led by the L.A. archdiocese, called for a boycott, warning the show was “probably one of the most effective arguments for government censorship of TV that has yet come along.” The Southern Baptist Convention’s Sunday School Board dumped 2,500 shares of ABC stock. A coalition aimed a letter-writing campaign at ABC and its advertisers, arguing television was “primarily a family medium.” One ABC vice president found his 11-year-old had been assigned a protest letter as homework. Advertisers fled, ad rates fell, promotion was scrapped, and 18 of 195 affiliates refused to air it. But the controversy actually sold the show, and it ran four seasons to strong reviews and solid ratings. Episode one carried the first “Viewer Discretion Advised” warning in U.S. network history, but the warning was gone by season two.
In the comments
Ink and opinion
