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

[Scarberry, Mark]

Joe, I don't see the relevance of your edits to the Citizens United issue.

On your sandwich argument:

Would you have a problem with a law that made you write briefs for a pro-life organization if you (which I'm not assuming except for purposes of making this point) are pro-choice?

There is an obvious difference between making a sandwich and creating celebratory art. Photography is a key kind of expression. Elane Photography even created photo-journalistic books celebrating weddings. Wedding photographers are not self-serve photo booths or even Disneyland photographers who take pictures of children with Minnie Mouse without exercising any creative role. They engage in protected First Amendment expression.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law


Sent from my iPad


Sent from my iPad

On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:15 PM, "Joe Birkenstock" <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>> wrote:

"The government does not compel that which it permits, including private arrangements by which [employees accept jobs from] a corporation [whose management and] elected directors [choose to do business in a state that requires agency fees to restrict free-riding].”

Fair edits, or no?


From: <Scarberry>, Mark <Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:Mark.Scarberry at pepperdine.edu>>
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 4:03 PM
To: Joe Birkenstock <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>>
Cc: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>, Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>, "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
Subject: Re: [EL] is it now conventional wisdom that "liberal" means "anti-free-speech"?

The government does not compel that which it permits, including private arrangements by which shareholders commit management of a corporation to the elected directors. That's apart from whether only "media corporations" (some of which also have minority shareholders, as opposed to Citizens United) should be the only ones that can advance the political views embraced by their directors. I suppose we could limit freedom of expression to them and bring back the fairness doctrine to be administered by trustworthy and apolitical government agencies.

Mark

Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 1, 2015, at 12:53 PM, "Joe Birkenstock" <birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com<mailto:birkenstock at sandlerreiff.com>> wrote:

I liked the one about forcing [minority shareholders] to subsidize political activity against their interests. Totally agree that compelled political associations are a bad thing – glad to learn that CATO is on the case!

___________________________________
Joseph M. Birkenstock
Sandler Reiff Lamb Rosenstein & Birkenstock, P.C.
1025 Vermont Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
202.479.1111
*also admitted to practice in CA


From: John Tanner <john.k.tanner at gmail.com<mailto:john.k.tanner at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:36 PM
To: Ilya Shapiro <IShapiro at cato.org<mailto:IShapiro at cato.org>>
Cc: "law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>" <law-election at uci.edu<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
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/20150701/76f2b2c6/attachment.html>