Milo’s college tour and the First Amendment: An explainer

Ian Haney López, Jesse Choper, Daniel Farber, and Robert Cole quoted by California Magazine, Jan. 26, 2017

López: “When universities invite someone to speak, they communicate that that person’s ideas are within the broad range of important public [discourse],” Haney-Lopez states. “Disinviting someone from speaking likewise communicates something—in this case, that the universities have come to realize that this speaker intentionally degrades people to draw attention, while offering little of any real intellectual substance. His poisonous invective is being drowned out by more and louder speech affirming humane values and inclusion. That’s precisely the ideal of free speech in action.”

Choper: “On the one hand, you have to have a content-neutral basis for [any] regulation [that might impinge on free speech],” says Jesse Choper, a professor emeritus at Berkeley Law, “and on the other, your assessment must be based on the perceived danger of such speech. So in a way, you’re forbidden to make a judgment, and you’re also required to make a judgment.”

Farber: “The Supreme Court has emphasized that the First Amendment is intended to protect ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,’ public debate,” Farber stated in an email, “so in terms of general principles, it seems to me that universities should be very hesitant to exclude a speaker or viewpoint simply because it is offensive or disruptive.”

Cole: In the case of Cal, says Cole, “Berkeley College Republicans is a university-sanctioned organization, and if, as it seems, it issued an invitation and arranged an engagement in accordance with university rules, then the university must allow the event. The university’s role is to remain a neutral marketplace. It can’t cancel a speaking event simply because a speaker is considered controversial, or officials are worried that it could result in bad publicity, or things could get raucous.”

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler & Interim Dean, Berkeley Law Melissa Murray

Melissa Murray interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Jan. 25, 2017

“The issue was to create doubt in the minds of the American people about what the media says so that, when the media does begin to report on more egregious breaches, there isn’t the trust that previously existed. So this is a two-fold strategy to, one, chill reporter conduct and free journalism and, two, to establish a baseline level of distrust between the media and the American people.”

How to plan an abortion in the surveillance state

Jill Adams quoted by NYMag.com: The Cut, Jan. 25, 2017

“We know that if this culture of surveillance and repression of pregnant people […] is allowed to proliferate, it will target and harm certain vulnerable groups,” says Jill E. Adams, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the Berkeley School of Law.

When is it OK to punch a Nazi?

David Schraub writes for Haaretz, Jan. 24, 2017

But one of the perks of winning World War II is that I don’t have to let Nazis dictate how I behave. I can do what I want! And if I don’t like punching people – and I don’t – why should I let a Nazi make me do it?

When Snap goes public, some shareholders’ voting rights may disappear

Steven Davidoff Solomon writes for The New York Times, Jan. 24, 2017

Snap is apparently going to make sure that the public has no vote and hence never the opportunity to have a say in the company’s governance. While public shareholders will be totally disenfranchised, Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Murphy are reportedly going to have 70 percent of the total vote despite owning only 40 percent of Snap.

Facebook doesn’t need a chief ethics officer

Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan cited by Slate, Jan. 24, 2017

As professors Kenneth Bamberger and Deirdre Mulligan show in their book Privacy on the Ground. … FTC pressure has been integral to the development of a corporate attitude toward privacy that goes beyond mere compliance with the law and instead actively promotes and protects the interests of consumers. As Bamberger and Mulligan note, the threat of FTC oversight has helped generate “more forward-thinking and dynamic approaches to privacy policies.”

Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist

John Yoo interviewed by WSJ Video: Opinion Journal: Opinion Journal, Jan. 24, 2017

“President Trump seems to be living up to his promise to try to look outside the usual corridors of power. He’s going out to the states to pick well-known figures amongst the judiciary out there, and I think that’s a very healthy sign that he’s trying to expand not just the ideology of the Supreme Court, but expand where people are coming from when they go to the Supreme Court.”