A Law Dork Q&A with Alex Abdo, the litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, about Monday's upcoming SCOTUS arguments.
A superb interview. Alex Adbo's passionate but reasoned advocacy for 1A is well complimented by his erudition. For lay followers of the Court, it's sometimes easy to write off (or at least, be suspicious of) frequent amicus brief submitters as "too partisan". Here, Adbo's words remind us that whether you agree with them or not, behind those efforts are really smart lawyers genuinely trying to make American jurisprudence better.
Very helpful discussion of the complexities of the case.
The thing that stood out to me so far was the heavy-handed opinion of a few of the conservative justices that some very egregious conduct was going on. From my vantage point, that seemed overblown. This goes to the 5th Cir. thinking the coercion is so obvious that the weaker test the advocate here finds inappropriate is met.
Not letting some conservative bugaboos overshadow the doctrinal issues is important. Thanks.
So interesting--I feel as though I understand this complicated issue so much better, and without you, I wouldn't have even known how complicated it is! As I was reading, I thought about the warning on cigarette packages. The government clearly persuaded/forced that tobacco companies to include it. How does that fit in with these cases?
So interesting! I did feel by the end of the interview that I understood the situation, which is pretty complicated. It made me think of the warning on cigarette packages. The government persuaded/ forced the tobacco companies to put it there. How does that relate to these cases?
I am very disappointed that this discussion, like so many matters of law, deals with nuances of procedure and responsibility, instead of CONTENT. Speaking as a physician, to me, this is a hugely important case because of the CONTENT and its harms. Our society accepts restrictions on free speech with regard to e.g. yelling "fire" in a theater and the content of the communications under discussion actually are likely to have killed people exposed to COVID-19 unprotected. The government has a basic social and civic responsibility to curtail this speech. Just because it has taken on a "political, partisan" aspect is no reason for our government to be restrained from doing its best to protect all of us and promote our security.
A superb interview. Alex Adbo's passionate but reasoned advocacy for 1A is well complimented by his erudition. For lay followers of the Court, it's sometimes easy to write off (or at least, be suspicious of) frequent amicus brief submitters as "too partisan". Here, Adbo's words remind us that whether you agree with them or not, behind those efforts are really smart lawyers genuinely trying to make American jurisprudence better.
Very helpful discussion of the complexities of the case.
The thing that stood out to me so far was the heavy-handed opinion of a few of the conservative justices that some very egregious conduct was going on. From my vantage point, that seemed overblown. This goes to the 5th Cir. thinking the coercion is so obvious that the weaker test the advocate here finds inappropriate is met.
Not letting some conservative bugaboos overshadow the doctrinal issues is important. Thanks.
Gah...my head hurts.
So interesting--I feel as though I understand this complicated issue so much better, and without you, I wouldn't have even known how complicated it is! As I was reading, I thought about the warning on cigarette packages. The government clearly persuaded/forced that tobacco companies to include it. How does that fit in with these cases?
So interesting! I did feel by the end of the interview that I understood the situation, which is pretty complicated. It made me think of the warning on cigarette packages. The government persuaded/ forced the tobacco companies to put it there. How does that relate to these cases?
I am very disappointed that this discussion, like so many matters of law, deals with nuances of procedure and responsibility, instead of CONTENT. Speaking as a physician, to me, this is a hugely important case because of the CONTENT and its harms. Our society accepts restrictions on free speech with regard to e.g. yelling "fire" in a theater and the content of the communications under discussion actually are likely to have killed people exposed to COVID-19 unprotected. The government has a basic social and civic responsibility to curtail this speech. Just because it has taken on a "political, partisan" aspect is no reason for our government to be restrained from doing its best to protect all of us and promote our security.
Excellent interview. Thank you both.