[EL] is it now conventional wisdom that "liberal" means "anti-free-speech"?

[Scarberry, Mark]

Elane Photography, New Mexico S. Ct., cert denied. See http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elane-photography-llc-v-willock/,  and amicus brief in support of petitioner by Cato Institute, Eugene Volokh, Dale Carpenter, and Ilya (as counsel of record), http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ElaneAmicusCato.pdf.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Professor of Law
Pepperdine Univ. School of Law



From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of John Tanner
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:37 PM
To: Ilya Shapiro
Cc: law-election at uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] is it now conventional wisdom that "liberal" means "anti-free-speech"?

I missed the one about fining photographers

On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:36 PM, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>> wrote:

Is that a serious question when the Left pushes restrictions on political speech, wants to criminalize hate speech, pushes educational theories regarding trigger warnings and micro-aggression, forces workers to subsidize political activity against their interests, and fines photographers for not using their art to support politically correct causes?

Government has obviously advanced under Obama, so I’m not sure why you’re complaining. Just don’t mistake progressivism for (liberty-based) liberalism.

Ilya Shapiro
Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies,
Editor-in-Chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review
Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Washington, DC  20001
tel. (202) 218-4600
cel. (202) 577-1134
fax. (202) 842-3490
ishapiro at cato.org<mailto:ishapiro at cato.org>
Bio/clips: http://www.cato.org/people/shapiro.html
Twitter: www.twitter.com/ishapiro<http://www.twitter.com/ishapiro>
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/author=1382023

Cato Supreme Court Review:  http://www.cato.org/supreme-court-review

Watch our 2014 Constitution Day Conference - Supreme Court Review/Preview:  http://www.cato.org/events/13th-annual-constitution-day

See me defend the right to keep and bear arms on the Colbert Report:  http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/340923/july-08-2010/automatics-for-the-people---ilya-shapiro---jackie-hilly

From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Winger
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 12:09 PM
To: law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: [EL] is it now conventional wisdom that "liberal" means "anti-free-speech"?

I am dismayed that the NY Times today, and analyses by others of a few days ago, seem to take it as conventional wisdom now that "conservatives" are pro-free-speech and "liberals" are anti-free-speech.  The NY Times today has a front page story about the "liberals" winning more cases in the last term of the court than they have in a long time.  The sidebar includes the Texas license plates case as a "liberal" victory.  The sidebar doesn't mention Reed v Town of Gilbert, Arizona, but presumably the authors classified that decision as a "conservative" victory.



"Liberal" and "liberty" have the same root.  Would one now say that Sullivan v New York Times was a "conservative" victory?



I would say that Justice Thomas wrote a liberal decision in Reed v Town of Gilbert.  He struck down a government restriction on speech.  Is that no longer "liberal"?

Richard Winger
415-922-9779
PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20150701/41f4d472/attachment.html>