Podcast appearances and mentions of Gary T Schwartz

A defiant Joe Biden said Monday that he's “firmly committed” to staying in the presidential race. Still, questions about Biden's age and fitness have put the spotlight on alternatives like Vice President Kamala Harris and others, including California Governor Gavin Newsom. At least half a dozen Democratic lawmakers have called for Biden to step aside, but the party remains divided. If Biden does drop out, what would an open convention look like? We'll discuss the growing pressure on the president, and the implications for the race. Guests: Marisa Lagos, politics correspondent, KQED; co-host, KQED's Political Breakdown Molly Ball, senior political correspondent, Wall Street Journal Richard Hasen, Gary T. Schwartz endowed chair in law, professor of political science, and director of the safeguarding democracy project at UCLA School of Law

Listeners, please welcome Prof. Ben Trumble to the show! Prof. Trumble joins us to talk about his fascinating research on how oral health can affect cardiovascular disease risk and cognitive health later in life. Find the publication discussed in today's episode via this citation: Benjamin C Trumble, Matthew Schwartz, Andrew T Ozga, Gary T Schwartz, Christopher M Stojanowski, Carrie L Jenkins, Thomas S Kraft, Angela R Garcia, Daniel K Cummings, Paul L Hooper, Daniel Eid Rodriguez, Kenneth Buetow, Bret Beheim, Andrei Irimia, Gregory S Thomas, Randall C Thompson, HORUS Team, Margaret Gatz, Jonathan Stieglitz, Caleb E Finch, Michael Gurven, Hillard Kaplan. Poor oral health is associated with inflammation, aortic valve calcification, and brain volume among forager-farmers, The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, 2024;, glae013, https://doi-org.proxy.lib.duke.edu/10.1093/gerona/glae013 ------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Trumble is an associate professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the Center for Evolution and Medicine and the Institute of Human Origins. His work focuses on chronic diseases of aging, working to understand how environmental conditions like parasites, pathogens, food availability, and social interactions impact human health. Taking an evolutionary life history perspective, he uses field and laboratory studies to understand variation in human endocrine systems, and how this influences chronic health conditions like benign prostatic hyperplasia, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's dementia. Prof. Trumble's website can be found here: https://trumblelab.org/ ----------------------------------------------------------- Contact the Sausage of Science Podcast and Human Biology Association: Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/humanbiologyassociation Website: humbio.org/, Twitter: @HumBioAssoc Courtney Manthey-Pierce, Co-Host, Website: courtneymanthey-pierce.godaddysites.com/ E-mail: cpierce4@uccs.edu, Twitter: @HolyLaetoli Alex Niclou, special returning Co-Host Eric Griffith, HBA Junior Fellow, SoS producer E-mail: eric.griffith at duke.edu

On March 18, 2021, the Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers Chapter hosted Prof. Eugene Volokh and Berin Szoka to debate issues surrounding social media, free speech, and Section 230. Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawBerin Szoka, President, TechFreedomModerator: Alex Brockmeyer, Shareholder, Boyle, Leonard & Anderson, P.A.; The Federalist Society's Southwest Florida Lawyers Chapter*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

From the comedy Cellar - Live From America Podcast with Noam Dworman and Hatem Gabr. This weeks guests: Professor - Eugene Volokh Comedian - Kurt Metzger Eugene Volokh is a Ukrainian-American legal scholar known for his scholarship in American constitutional law and libertarianism as well as his prominent legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. He is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, and is an academic affiliate at the law firm Mayer Brown. https://reason.com/volokh/ Follow Live From America YouTube www.youtube.com/channel/UCS2fqgw61yK1J6iKNxV0LmA Twitter twitter.com/AmericasPodcast www.LiveFromAmericaPodcast.com LiveFromAmerica@ComedyCellar.com Follow Hatem Twitter twitter.com/HatemNYC Instagram www.instagram.com/hatemnyc/ Follow Noam Twitter twitter.com/noamdworman?lang #EugeneVolokh #FreeSpeech #TheVolokhConspiracy

The DOJ has charged Douglas Mackey, aka Ricky Vaughn, with conspiracy “to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” people in the exercise of their constitutional rights. His crime? Using his social media platform in the months leading up to November 2016 to post memes about the Presidential election, including ones that – if taken literally – falsely state that people could vote for Hillary just by posting on Twitter and Facebook. Are such prosecutions consistent with the First Amendment? Are they authorized by federal law? Joining us to discuss is Professor Eugene Volokh, noted First Amendment scholar and the Gary T. Schwartz, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law, who recently wrote on the subject.Featuring: -- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

On February 19, 2021, the Charleston, Greenville, and Columbia Lawyers Chapters hosted Eugene Volokh and Casey Mattox for a discussion on the First Amendment and Rule 8.4.Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA Law and a recognized First Amendment expertCasey Mattox, Vice President of Legal Strategy, Americans for Prosperity and a regular First Amendment litigatorIntroduction: Miles Coleman, Partner, Nelson Mullins; The Federalist Society's Columbia Lawyers Chapter* * * * * As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

You can be silenced. You can Be Censored. Is That Even Legal?In this episode, Bob is joined by 1st Amendment expert and Constitutional Scholar Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, hosted at Reason.com.Listen as Bob and Volokh discuss censorship on social media such as Twitter and Facebook, where many, from Trump to regular citizens, are being banned.Are social media outlets the modern public square? As private entities can they determine who has a voice and what gets said?You hear a lot that “changing Section 230,” will stop censorship. Will it? And, What is Section 230?Should the government impose rules? Constitutionally, can they?Is social media more like a telephone company, or more like a newspaper or a magazine? The answer may determine the future of censorship. Listen Now!

On November 10, 2020, The Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The panel explored "Rule of Law, or Just Making it Up? First Amendment Tiered Scrutiny."Different levels of Scrutiny are a staple of First Amendment Jurisprudence. Strict scrutiny for viewpoint-based restrictions, intermediate scrutiny for restrictions on commercial speech, and, over the years, amorphously defined other types of “heightened” scrutiny for restrictions on association, campaign-related speech, public vs. private figure defamation, and purportedly incidental speech restrictions. In recent years, however, various judges and justices have called for revisiting ahistorical or a-textual approaches constitutional analysis, in both the First Amendment and other contexts. And many scholars have long questioned whether tiered scrutiny is just a smoke-screen for ad hoc balancing, allowing judges to impose their own preferred outcomes in any given case. This panel will explore both the theory and practice of tiered scrutiny in First Amendment analysis. Is there a textual or historical basis for creating such differential levels of scrutiny? Is a more historical or absolutist approach more faithful to the constitutional text? Is it even possible to avoid creating such judicial doctrines at the margins where the application of First Amendment principles to moderns circumstances can be challenging at best? As for the practical application of tiered scrutiny, how does one distinguish between important or compelling interests versus valid but otherwise ordinary interests? How does one determine a less restrictive means of accomplishing a governmental goal, and how much loss of efficiency is too much to ask to preserve some additional amount of speech? Are courts even remotely capable of providing consistent answers to such questions across a range of cases, or is it inevitable that the answer to any such questions will be entirely a function of the judge’s policy preferences?If our judicial system is meant to be based on the rule of law rather than the rule of judges, does tiered scrutiny advance or hinder that ideal? Does the “rule of law” allow any degree of judicial discretion or judgment and, if so, is there any textual basis for deciding how much judgment is allowed and how much effectively eliminates any “rule” at all.Featuring:Prof. Ashutosh Bhagwat, Boochever and Bird Endowed Chair for the Study and Teaching of Freedom and Equality; Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, University of California, Davis School of LawProf. Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. David R. Stras, United States Court of Appeals, Eighth CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Zoom Webinar ID: Webinar ID: 941 2457 3082Please click the link below to join the webinar:https://fedsoc.zoom.us/j/94124573082Article II and the 12th Amendment require those seeking the office of President and Vice-President be a “natural-born citizen.” The 14th Amendment provides that "all persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." But what does it mean to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?” These two texts have been the subject of controversy throughout the past decade, and present interesting legal questions for constitutional theorists. Is it enough to be born in the U.S.A.?In conjunction with the Chapman University and UCLA Federalist Society chapters, the Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Group is poised to host renowned Constitutional scholars John Eastman and Eugene Volokh. Eastman and Volokh will debate the meaning of the Constitution’s citizenship clauses live on Zoom. The Honorable Andrew Guilford, Ret., will moderate with Q&A to follow. Featuring: Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawJohn Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawModerator: Hon. Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Court, Central District of California

Leading First Amendments scholar and the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor at UCLA School of Law, Eugene Volokh joins us on the pod to discuss: whether the government can force citizens to get vaccinated, the Supreme Court precedent that guides his thinking on First Amendment issues related to Covid-19, his scholarship on court forgeries, and why he loves being an academic.

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Freedom of Speech and Private Power".Should the government protect speech against private power, and not just governmental power? Many states restrict private employers’ ability to fire employees based on their speech. A few protect private college students, private high school students, or speakers at private shopping malls. And of course employment law and public accommodation law routinely ban private discrimination based on religion, including based on religious speech.Should the federal and state governments provide comparable protection against private discrimination based on political affiliation, including political speech? Should the government require colleges and universities to demonstrate a commitment to free speech to receive government funding? Should banks, insurers, and social media platforms be required to protect free speech? Or should private entities remain largely free (or even become freer) to discriminate based on speech and ideology?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawMs. Ann Coulter, Author and ColumnistProf. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

On November 15, 2019, the Federalist Society's Free Speech & Election Law Practice Group hosted a panel for the 2019 National Lawyers Convention at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The panel discussed "Freedom of Speech and Private Power".Should the government protect speech against private power, and not just governmental power? Many states restrict private employers’ ability to fire employees based on their speech. A few protect private college students, private high school students, or speakers at private shopping malls. And of course employment law and public accommodation law routinely ban private discrimination based on religion, including based on religious speech.Should the federal and state governments provide comparable protection against private discrimination based on political affiliation, including political speech? Should the government require colleges and universities to demonstrate a commitment to free speech to receive government funding? Should banks, insurers, and social media platforms be required to protect free speech? Or should private entities remain largely free (or even become freer) to discriminate based on speech and ideology?*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.Featuring:Prof. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law and Director, Intellectual Property, Information & Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawMs. Ann Coulter, Author and ColumnistProf. Eric Goldman, Professor of Law and Co-Director, High Tech Law Institute, Santa Clara University School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Britt C. Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh CircuitIntroduction: Erik S. Jaffe, Partner, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP

What do we mean when we say "The First Amendment"? Well, it's obvious: we mean the most robust protection of speech rights, religious liberty, freedom of the press, and freedom of association in the world today. Correct, says Eugene Volokh, absolutely correct. But it could change! Listen to this illuminating conversation with one of the country's leading experts on freedom of speech and constitutional law. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA, and an expert on free speech law, tort law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, and a First Amendment amicus brief clinic at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy. Before coming to UCLA, he clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes, The Religion Clauses and Related Statutes (2005), and Academic Legal Writing (4th ed. 2010), as well as over 75 law review articles and over 80 op-eds. He is a member of The American Law Institute, a member of the American Heritage Dictionary Usage Panel, and the founder and coauthor of a legal blog and discussion forum, The Volokh Conspiracy. 

"Shall not be infringed." Seems simple enough, but nevertheless Democrats persisted in trying to rob words on their meaning. Fortunately we’re joined today by Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA to discuss what the Second Amendment means. Then, CNN invents a new class of firearms, Sheriff Scott Israel vindicates Jeff Sessions, and the Heritage Foundation says Trump is outpacing Reagan.

Oral arguments for a case involving a Denver-based, Christian baker are slated for December 5th of this year. The case tackles questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech. Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the gay couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures”. As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the important act of determining the religious liberties of persons while balancing the promotion of equality through anti-discriminatory laws. Furthermore, questions of free speech arise. Phillips considers his custom cakes an art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Featuring:Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, The Becket FundProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Oral arguments for a case involving a Denver-based, Christian baker are slated for December 5th of this year. The case tackles questions of religious liberty, expressive acts, and compelled speech. Two men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, were planning their wedding and sought a wedding cake from Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips told the men that he could not make them a cake, citing his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Phillips was discriminating against the gay couple on the basis of sexual orientation. Phillips was told to “cease and desist” such discrimination and was ordered to provide “remedial measures”. As a result, Phillips stopped offering custom cakes entirely.The case deals with the important act of determining the religious liberties of persons while balancing the promotion of equality through anti-discriminatory laws. Furthermore, questions of free speech arise. Phillips considers his custom cakes an art and himself an artist. Phillips and many others see the “cease and desist” as a form of compelled speech, since he would be legally obligated to create art with a message he does not support.Featuring:Eric Rassbach, Deputy General Counsel, The Becket FundProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the President’s Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public official’s social media page is a designated public forum. The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institute’s requests would “send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.” Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Can President Trump block citizens from following his own Twitter feed? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University has filed suit on behalf of several Twitter users who were denied the ability to follow the President’s Twitter feed after they made comments critical of him. The Institute claims that the ban is a violation of a First Amendment right to free speech and free assembly, and that a public official’s social media page is a designated public forum. The Justice Department, defending President Trump, says the courts are powerless to tell President Trump how he can manage his private Twitter handle and the Institute’s requests would “send the First Amendment deep into uncharted waters.” Joining our We The People podcast to discuss these arguments are Alex Abdo, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. CREDITS Today’s show was engineered by Jason Gregory and produced by Ugonna Eze and Lana Ulrich. Research was provided by Lana and Tom Donnelly. Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly. Please subscribe to We the People and our companion podcast, Live at America’s Town Hall, on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. We the People is a member of Slate’s Panoply network. Check out the full roster of podcasts at Panoply.fm. And finally, despite our congressional charter, the National Constitution Center is a private nonprofit; we receive little government support, and we rely on the generosity of people around the country who are inspired by our nonpartisan mission of constitutional debate and education. Please consider becoming a member to support our work, including this podcast. Visit constitutioncenter.org to learn more.

Where are the new frontiers in First Amendment law? Where do scholars and the courts see the potential for expanding First Amendment protections in the future? What technological developments pose challenges to existing First Amendment protections? Our guest on today’s episode of So to Speak will help us answer those questions. Professor Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA and the founder of the popular legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Before receiving his law degree and clerking for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court, he graduated from UCLA at age 15 with a degree in math-computer science and worked as a computer programmer for 12 years. Professor Volokh is widely regarded as a foremost scholar on the First Amendment and his textbook, “The First Amendment and Related Statutes,” is used in law schools across the country. On today’s show, we explore topics relating to virtual reality and augmented reality, occupational speech and the case of Mats Järlström, prediction markets, and Packingham v. North Carolina, a case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with registered sex offenders’ access to social media. Also in this show: Professor Volokh shares what First Amendment issue he is particularly interested in at the moment. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast  Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

In August 2016, the American Bar Association (ABA) added new anti-discrimination guidelines for lawyers to its Model Rules of Professional Conduct through section 8.4. This section now binds lawyers to adhere to particular speech codes in the many states that have adopted it. -- The provision labels engagement “in conduct that [a] lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law." The ABA has defined discrimination and harassment to include “harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others. Harassment includes sexual harassment and derogatory or demeaning verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other unwelcome verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature." The conduct guidelines extend to “the practice of law," including, “representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and other while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law." -- Some have described this section as infringing on the rights on lawyers to speak their mind, while others have argued it is necessary to prevent discrimination within the profession. This debate will discuss the implications of Model Rules of Professional Conduct 8.4 and its impact on workplace discrimination and lawyers' rights. -- This debate was presented at the 2017 National Student Symposium on Saturday, March 4, 2017, at Columbia Law School in New York City, New York. -- Featuring: Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law and Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Partner, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. Moderator: Hon. Lavenski Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit.

Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law joined us Monday, December 12 to discuss the ABA’s new Rule 8.4 on professional misconduct. The Rule states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The ABA goes further in Comments, stating that “Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others,” and that the Rule applies in any situation, even social, that is “connected to the practice of law.” Professor Volokh discussed the First Amendment implications and reaction to the new rule. -- Featuring: Professor Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law

In Search of Jefferson’s Moose: Notes on the State of Cyberspace? explores the "new world" of cyberspace: what it is, how it works, and what laws it should have. Author David Post compares Thomas Jefferson’s thoughts on the New World in Notes on the State of Virginia to the internet, drawing out the similarities and differences between the two "new worlds," and presents Jefferson’s ideal--small self-governing groups loosely joined together and forming groups of increasingly large size--as a model for self-government in cyberspace. -- David Post, a Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, is joined by critical commenter Eugene Volokh, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law, to discuss the book.