Podcast appearances and mentions of geoffrey stone

From April 22, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, and Geoffrey Stone, the Edward H. Levy Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss their new book, "National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On." They discussed the holding and legacy of the Pentagon Papers case, as well as some of the many challenges of applying the Pentagon Papers regime in the modern digital era that is characterized by massive leaks and a very different press landscape than the one that prevailed in 1971.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Nonbinary sex rules, according to comedian Arjun Banerjee. President Donald Trump spent his very first day in office rolling back protections for transgender Americans — just in time for Arjun to figure out what sort of gender-affirming care she wants. In and around the hot political topic of super scary trans people, Arjun and I discussed her sexual comings of age, football, fatphobia, and what she's going to do with her penis. Plus, Billy gives a little lecture about a little Supreme Court case called Lawrence v. Texas. Mentioned: February 6 - Polyamorous Speed Dating - https://www.eventbrite.com/e/nonmongamy-speed-dating-polyamorous-dating-in-brooklyn-tickets-1144520835629 February 14 - The Naked Comedy Show - https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-naked-comedy-show-best-stand-up-comedy-without-pants-in-bushwick-tickets-1144567254469 PHILADELPHIA - Sign up for Naked Comedy Show updates @ http://eepurl.com/i4WHBA Bag Man by Rachel Maddow - https://bookshop.org/a/91449/9780593136683 Sex and the Constitution by Geoffrey Stone -https://bookshop.org/a/91449/9781631494284 Lawrence v. Texas a funny @freddie.shanel joke Follow Arjun Banerjee! Instagram: @arjunbanerjesus TikTok: @arjunbanerjeecomedy www.arjuncomedy.com Follow Billy! Instagram: @billyprocidajr TikTok: @TheBillyProcida Threads: @billyisprocida BlueSky: @thebillyprocida 0nlyFans: @callmebilly Money Stuff Venmo: @BillyProcida Cash App: $manwhorepod PayPal/Zelle: funnybillypro@gmail.com Do your affordable book shopping at http://bookshop.org/shop/billy! Become a Patreon member at https://www.patreon.com/manwhorepodcast! Make like-minded friends in The Champagne Room at http://manwhorepod.com/discord Email your comments, questions, and criticisms to manwhorepod@gmail.com. Late Night Radio by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ www.ManwhorePod.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Representative Christopher Cox, author of Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn, and Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago join moderator Jeffrey Rosen to discuss Woodrow Wilson's constitutional and historical legacy. They explore Wilson's illiberal record in the defining constitutional battles of his time, focusing his opposition to women's suffrage, free speech, and racial equality. This conversation was originally streamed live as part of the NCC's America's Town Hall program series on November 25, 2024. Resources:  Christopher Cox, Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn (2024)  Geoffrey Stone, "Woodrow Wilson, Princeton University, and the Battles We Choose to Fight," Huffington Post (Nov. 21, 2015)  Geoffrey Stone, Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism (2004) Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918  Committee on Public Information, Free Speech Center (2009; updated 2024)  The First Amendment, National Constitution Center exhibit  Susan B. Anthony Amendment, National Susan B. Anthony Museum & House  Justice Brandeis, Oyez  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

In this episode, Christopher Cox, former U.S. congressman and author of the new book, Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn, and Professor Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago discuss Wilson's presidential legacy, constitutional vision, and impact on American democracy. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources Christopher Cox, Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn (2024) Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918 Committee on Public Information, Free Speech Center (2009; updated 2024) The First Amendment, National Constitution Center exhibit Susan B. Anthony Amendment, National Susan B. Anthony Museum & House Justice Brandeis, Oyez Geoffrey Stone, “Woodrow Wilson, Princeton University, and the Battles We Choose to Fight,” Huffington Post (Nov. 21, 2015) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate

Over the past few weeks, protests on college campuses over the war in Gaza have sparked debate about the extent and limits of student and faculty free speech rights. In this episode, two leading First Amendment scholars, Keith Whittington of Princeton University and Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago, join Jeffrey Rosen to discuss the current debates over free speech on campus. They also discuss Whittington's new book, You Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms.  Resources:  Keith Whittington, You Can't Teach That!: The Battle Over University Classrooms (2024)   Keith Whittington, Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech (2019)   Keith Whittington, “Civil Disobedience Has Consequences,” The Daily Princetonian (May 10, 2024)  Keith Whittington, “What Can Professors Say in Public? Extramural Speech and the First Amendment,” Case Western L. Rev (2023)   University of Chicago, Kalven Committee: Report on the University's Role in Political and Social Action   University of Chicago, “Report on the Committee on Freedom of Expression” (2014)  “UChicago Says Free Speech Is Sacred. Some Students See Hypocrisy,” NYTimes (May 2024)    Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.   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.  You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Lee Bollinger, First Amendment scholar, law professor and former president of Columbia University and the co-editor (with Geoffrey Stone) of Roe v. Dobbs: The Past, Present, and Future of a Constitutional Right to Abortion (Oxford University Press, 2024), and Mary Ziegler, UC Davis law professor and the author of Abortion and the Law in America: A Legal History, Roe v. Wade to the Present (Cambridge University Press, 2020) and a contributor to Roe v. Dobbs: The Past, Present, and Future of a Constitutional Right to Abortion (Oxford University Press, 2024), talk about the new book and Tuesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court to determine access of the abortion drug mifepristone.

America's Supreme Court has ended the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. It is 45 years since the court gave its blessing to such practices but, given that it now has a six-justice conservative majority sceptical of using racial criteria, the decision was no surprise. Why did the court do this, and was it right to?The University of Chicago's Geoffrey Stone explains why he thinks it was wrong. We go back to the first time the court ruled on affirmative action in admissions. And The Economist's Steve Mazie analyses the justices' opinions and dissents. John Prideaux hosts with Charlotte Howard and Idrees Kahloon.You can now find every episode of Checks and Balance in one place and sign up to our weekly newsletter. For full access to print, digital and audio editions, as well as exclusive live events, subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/uspod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

America's Supreme Court has ended the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions. It is 45 years since the court gave its blessing to such practices but, given that it now has a six-justice conservative majority sceptical of using racial criteria, the decision was no surprise. Why did the court do this, and was it right to?The University of Chicago's Geoffrey Stone explains why he thinks it was wrong. We go back to the first time the court ruled on affirmative action in admissions. And The Economist's Steve Mazie analyses the justices' opinions and dissents. John Prideaux hosts with Charlotte Howard and Idrees Kahloon.You can now find every episode of Checks and Balance in one place and sign up to our weekly newsletter. For full access to print, digital and audio editions, as well as exclusive live events, subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/uspod. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

None of us can listen to Geoffrey Stone, the First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago, tell about his encounter with African American students without asking ourselves some tough questions: what kinds of speech do we really want to allow, or prevent, on college campuses? And how do we keep universities faithful to their mission of teaching young people to think?  Stone walks us through the controversy and how he responded to it. 

In June of this year, the Supreme Court is expected to roll back affirmative action. Among those taking a stand is Lee Bollinger. Bollinger is the current president of Columbia University and throughout his career he's fought for the use of racial preferences to promote diversity – perhaps most notably with his role in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 Supreme Court decision that's at risk of being overturned. Today, Bollinger continues to push for race-based admissions with his new book “A Legacy of Discrimination: The Essential Constitutionality of Affirmative Action”, co-authored with Geoffrey Stone. In this episode Epicenter's S. Mitra Kalita talks to Bollinger about the book and what he sees as the biggest challenges ahead. A Legacy of Discrimination: The Essential Constitutionality of Affirmative Action:https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-legacy-of-discrimination-9780197685747?cc=us&lang=en& Lee Bollinger's Last-Ditch Case to Save Affirmative Action:https://time.com/charter/6270379/lee-bollingers-last-ditch-case-to-save-affirmative-action/ Epicenter-NYC membership: https://checkout.fundjournalism.org/memberform?org_id=epicenternyc&campaign=7018a000000yJx6AA  Our intro music: http://karavikamusic.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From April 20, 2021: Jack Goldsmith sat down with Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, and Geoffrey Stone, the Edward H. Levy Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss their new book, "National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On." They discussed the holding and legacy of the Pentagon Papers case, as well as some of the many challenges of applying the Pentagon Papers regime in the modern digital era that is characterized by massive leaks and a very different press landscape than the one that prevailed in 1971.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

First Amendment scholar and University Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, co-writer/editor of "National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On." Original air date 16 April 2021. The book was published on 1 April 2021.

None of us can listen to Geoffrey Stone, the famous law professor at the University of Chicago, tell about his own encounter with upset students without asking ourselves some tough questions: what kind of speech do we really want to allow, or prevent, on college campuses? And how do we keep universities faithful to their mission of teaching young people to think?

In 19th Century New York, everyone knew who to go to to end an unwanted pregnancy: the French-trained, sophisticated Madame Restell, who lived in a posh mansion on 5th Avenue. In reality, Madame Restell was English immigrant Ann Trow Lohman, and she had never even been to France, but she managed to combine medical skill with her carefully crafted public persona to become tremendously wealthy, while providing a much-needed service. As the legal landscape of the United States grew ever more conservative, Madame Restell did her best to evade the authorities, and then Anthony Comstock knocked on her door. Joining me this week to help us understand more about Madame Restell is historian and writer Jennifer Wright, author of Madame Restell: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Old New York's Most Fabulous, Fearless, and Infamous Abortionist. Our theme song is Frogs Legs Rag, composed by James Scott and performed by Kevin MacLeod, licensed under Creative Commons. The mid-episode music is part of Twelve Pieces for piano, op. 40, No. 9, Valse in F-sharp minor, by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, 1878, performed by Kevin McLeod, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons. The episode image is “The arrest of abortionist Ann Lohman (a.k.a. Madame Restell) by Anthony Comstock,” from the February 23, 1878, edition of the New York Illustrated Times; scanned from The Wickedest Woman in New York: Madame Restell, the Abortionist by Clifford Browder; available via Wikimedia Commons and in the public domain. Additional sources: “Madame Restell: The Abortionist of Fifth Avenue,” by Karen Abbott, Smithsonian Magazine, November 27, 2012. “Life Story: Ann Trow Lohman, a.k.a. Madame Restell (1812 - 1878),” Women and the American Story, New York Historical Society. “When 'The Wickedest Woman of New York' Lived on Fifth Avenue,” by Simon Scully, Mental Floss, October 2, 2020. “Madame Restell's Other Profession,” By Christopher Gray, The New York Times, October 10, 2013. “‘Sex and the Constitution': Anthony Comstock and the reign of the moralists,” by Geoffrey Stone, The Washington Post, March 23, 2017. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

None of us can listen to Geoffrey Stone, the famous law professor at the University of Chicago, tell about his own encounter with upset students without asking ourselves some tough questions: what kind of speech do we really want to allow, or prevent, on college campuses? And how do we keep universities faithful to their mission of teaching young people to think?

Thousands of households are without power in Ukraine's capital Kyiv. The country's leaders say that because Russia can't defeat them on the battlefield, they're trying to break them at home instead. So how do the people of Ukraine get by without reliable access to water, heat or power – while knowing winter is coming? Christiane meets with residents and business owners in Kyiv to see how they're adapting. Following her report, she speaks with the UN's resident coordinator in Ukraine Denise Brown, who oversees the global response to the acute humanitarian needs of the people in the country.   Also on today's show: Anne Applebaum, staff writer for The Atlantic; legal scholars Geoffrey Stone and Lee Bollinger on the threat to affirmative action.To learn more about how CNN protects listener privacy, visit cnn.com/privacy

*Jacob Sonenshine of Barron's discusses how inflation shocked the market yesterday, but some stocks could still benefit. *Professor and first amendment scholar Geoffrey Stone believes that Awake Illinois has no backing for a defamation case against Rep. Casten. *Alex Stone of ABC News provides an update on the potential rail strike and looks at the economic impact it could have. *Bob Chiarito reports from the courthouse after the verdict was announced in the R. Kelly trial. *Plus, Gus Noble of Chicago Scots tells John about the importance of the Stone of Destiny, as it makes the trek to King Charles' coronation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

*Jacob Sonenshine of Barron's discusses how inflation shocked the market yesterday, but some stocks could still benefit. *Professor and first amendment scholar Geoffrey Stone believes that Awake Illinois has no backing for a defamation case against Rep. Casten. *Alex Stone of ABC News provides an update on the potential rail strike and looks at the economic impact it could have. *Bob Chiarito reports from the courthouse after the verdict was announced in the R. Kelly trial. *Plus, Gus Noble of Chicago Scots tells John about the importance of the Stone of Destiny, as it makes the trek to King Charles' coronation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Does the First Amendment of the Constitution Cover Freedom of Speech?The United States of America is the freest nation on Earth, for the time being. The Supreme Law of the land continues to be the Constitution. The founding document of our great nation on its own is the crowning achievement of the Founding Fathers, but before its ratification, ten articles were included as amendments.These ten articles became known as the Bill of Rights. The first of those rights, called the First Amendment, is:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Today, we are going to provide Free Speech 101: The Essential Guide. There are many things which ought to be said in the realm of freedom of speech, but these things are the roots, the essence of the topic.What is Freedom of Speech?The Constitution's First Amendment protects the nation from Congress attempted to make laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. This is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy.Geoffrey Stone and Eugene Volokh, in conjunction with the National Constitution Center, provide a fantastic layman's version of this freedom: "Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances."The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as protecting speakers from any and all government agencies and officials. Further, "speech" and "press" refers to talking, writing, printing, broadcasting, the Internet, and other forms of expressing oneself. Much to the chagrin of some, "freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like (Stone, Volokh)."What Circumstances Are Not Covered as Free Speech Under the First Amendment?The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a reputation as a liberal organization, to put it mildly. However, in an article regarding free speech, the ACLU wrote:"Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That's because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they're going to be preserved for everyone."Quite right! So, when is freedom of speech NOT covered by the First Amendment of the Constitution?First, certain types of speech are considered "low" value to the Supreme Court and thus provide circumstances under which the First Amendment barely applies or does not apply. These are outlined, with references to specific cases by Stone and Volohk:DefamationTrue threats"Fighting words"Hard-core obscenity (such as highly sexually explicit pornography)Child pornographyCommercial Advertising which is misleadingSecond, if the speaker is in a special relationship to the government, they are less protected. Government employees, such as public school employees can be restricted, even in the content of their speech.Third, the government can restrict speech under certain circumstances which are irrespective of content. For example, restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large distracting signs are constitutional, if they are reasonable. However, a law prohibiting demonstrations in public parks or handing out leaflets on public streets would be unconstitutional.Who was John Stuart Mill and What Did He Believe About Speech?Where did the American notion of freedom of speech which we possess come from? The lion's share of that work belongs to the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. In his 1859 book, On Liberty, Mill provided a bold argument for freedom of speech. Mill believed in the freedom of speech to discuss any topic at all, without molestation. The fullest expression of liberty in his mind was following topics of conversation to their logical limits. Social niceties be damned. He did, however, hold to what is called the "Harm Principle." Writing on this subject, Mill says, "... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others (Mill, J.S., 1978. On Liberty, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing)." Application of this principle is the subject of not a few debates. However, it is important to take note of this principle because it is the default liberal position on almost everything. "Well... I'm not hurting anyone!!!"To find the most liberal position's boundaries, we need only determine if someone would be harmed by someone's else's free expression. Important to distinguish, however, is that Mill would not have argued that freedom of speech be limited simply because a person was harmed. Only when speech causes direct and clear harm should it be limited.What are the Critiques of John Stuart Mill? Do They Bear Any Merit?The extreme liberal position of John Stuart Mill was an important contribution to the debate on freedom of speech. Many topics would have remained undiscussed due to taboos and socially acceptable limits. One important critique comes from an article in the Boston Review by Jacob Stanley in 2018. Stanley rightly points out that, "Disagreement requires a shared set of presuppositions about the world. Even dueling requires agreement about the rules." In his estimation, John Stuart Mill believed that "true belief becomes knowledge only by emerging victorious from the din of argument and discussion, which must occur either with actual opponents or through internal dialogue." Stanley, therefore, argues that false claims and conspiracy theories must be defended, if we are to have a chance of achieving knowledge. Stanley, however, recognizes the limits of the idea of a "marketplace of ideas" saying that human nature does not really allow for the truth to always prevail.This pragmatic view seems to provide a tempering of John Stuart Mill's unadulterated view of freedom of speech. We must understand our own limitations, as humanity, if we are to understand what freedom of speech offers us. We also cannot forget what freedom of speech requires of us!Taking OffensePresently, hate speech and taking offense are unfortunately conflated. Hate speech is determined based on the intention of the speaker. Whereas, taking offense is based on the decision of the hearer. They are not the same. In fact, sometimes a person might say something which another person takes as offensive. Let us imagine, though, that the thing which the speaker said is absolutely true and the problem is with the hearer being out of step with the truth. At this point, we can start analyzing whether what was said needed to be said. Did it need to be said in the way that it did? Did it need to be said in the circumstances that it did? Did it need to be said by that speaker to that hearer at that time?We need to dispel this myth that we have a right to not be offended. Sometimes we need to be offended. We are not perfect, not one of us. And so, if a truth is given to us, we need to be receptive, even if it hurts. That is how we grow.So, it would seem that freedom of speech extends to being offensive? But what about offensive statements which are not based in reality and actually point to a deeper more problematic issue under the surface? True hate speech causes offense, more often than not. But it is not the offense which is the primary issue. Hate speech can do injustice to privacy, equity, and security. Speech which shows a blatant disregard for the equity of people based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or gender (biological sex - male or female) which intends harm, cannot be under freedom of speech. No one is free to threaten harm. The Limits of Freedom of Speech and Our God-Given RightsI have no desire to opine on every possible aspect of freedom of speech in which limitations might be appropriate. Instead, I want to call us back to seeing freedom of speech as a right which necessarily is accompanied by responsibility. Here I am going to stray into philosophy rather than legality. To be clear, I am not going to be discussing what is constitutional or not, but rather stating what I believe to be right or not. Rooted in respect for human dignity, all are called to seek the common good. An integral part of securing the common good is protecting the basic and inalienable rights of all people. This begins with the right to life. Mothers and fathers have a responsibility to protect their children (from the first moment of his or her existence) to the best of their ability. Generally, the best decision is made at the local level. And so, each family must make decisions for themselves and their neighbors. These micro-communities need to serve their macro-communities. Those communities need to serve the common good of the state, then the nation, then the world. Our rights do not come primarily from our government. They begin at home. They begin with life. Responsibility Accompanies Rights, AlwaysIn justice, as we seek the common good, we exercise these rights, but we must never lose sight of the accompanying responsibilities. Put another way: we are not given rights by the Creator to be kept for our sole use. When it comes to speech, we do not have freedom of speech so much as freedom FOR speech. Our rights are geared towards our duties and responsibilities. We have to use our gifts and powers well. As Pope John XXIII wrote well in his 1963 letter Pacem in Terris:"... in human society one man's natural right gives rise to a corresponding duty in other men; the duty, that is, of recognizing and respecting that right. Every basic human right draws its authoritative force from the natural law, which confers it and attaches to it its respective duty. Hence, to claim one's rights and ignore one's duties, or only half fulfill them, is like building a house with one hand and tearing it down with the other (30)."When we speak, we do not have a license to say whatever we would like. Certainly, we have the protected right to do so in the United States, under certain limitations. But I am arguing that we should use our freedom of speech wisely. By using it well, our words will have greater impact. Our well-chosen words will add social value and lift our neighbors up. Let us build up this common house and humanity, rather than tear it down.Thanks for reading Will Wright Catholic! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Sources:https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-i/interps/266What is free speech? What is not considered free speech?https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/Freedom of Speech entry at Stanfordhttps://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1258/john-stuart-mill1st Amendment Encyclopediahttp://bostonreview.net/politics-philosophy-religion/jason-stanley-what-mill-got-wrong-about-freedom-of-speechLiberal critique of John Stuart Millhttps://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speechACLU on Freedom of Speechhttps://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/Text of the 1st Amendmenthttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/Free speech and the internet This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit willwrightcatholic.substack.com

Recorded on 05/17/2022. After a bit of a break from our regular show, we're back with some more recent news. In this episode, Frank and Reid talk a little about the draft leak of SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v. Wayde. They also talk about the ongoing economic issue, and events taking place leading up to the November mid-term elections. Be sure to tune in to hear the great conversation.If you enjoy our content, please remember to leave a rating and review where ever you get your podcasts. Be sure to also comment and subscribe to our show on Youtube. Please, share it with your friends to spread the word. You can send us your feedback and comments to us directly by email. Don't forget to check out our other podcast, the Wicky Wacky Radio Show. All info can be found below.Contact Us:Frank: contempconserv@gmail.comReid: contempconserv2@gmail.comFollow on TwitterOur Links:ContemporaryConservative.netConservative Conversations PodcastConservative Conversations on YoutubeThe Wicky Wacky Radio Show PodcastThe Wicky Wacky Radio Show on YoutubeReferences:Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School VisitJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Geoffrey Stone, "Roe at 40'Be very afraid': NYC mayor scaremongers over possibility of residents being allowed to carry handguns to defend themselvesMass Shootings in 2022- A Partial List Inflation is the ‘top problem' facing America, with no other issue coming close, survey showsDo Animals Have RightsMaine- Animal Legal Defense FundTucker: There is something really wrong

Columbia University president Lee Bollinger and University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone discuss their book “Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of Our Democracy."

Earlier this summer, we partnered with The Cultural Services of the French Embassy on a pair of programs comparing the freedoms of religion and speech in France and in the United States, and how those freedoms are protected in the two countries. In this program, a panel of experts from both countries explores how freedom of speech and press as guaranteed by the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen differs from freedom of speech and press in America under the First Amendment of the Constitution—as well as how laws and courts in both countries protect those rights and address issues over controversial speech. National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen was joined by Marc-Olivier Bherer, staff editor and reporter for the French daily Le Monde and Nieman Fellow at Harvard in the 2021 class; Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America and author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All; Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School; and Hélène Tigroudja, law professor at Aix-Marseille University in France and a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This panel was streamed live on June 1, 2021. Check out another program from our partnership with the French embassy, “Religious Liberty in France and America,” and more programs on free speech in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Additional resources and transcript available at constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/media-library. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

As the 50th anniversary of the Pentagon Papers case approached, First Amendment scholars Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone knew they wanted to mark the occasion somehow. Much has changed since RAND Corporation employee Daniel Ellsberg decided spend weeks photocopying some 7,000 pages of a classified report on the war in Vietnam and sneaking them out via his briefcase to be published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. For one thing, since 2011, the complete report has been made available to the public by the National Archives. For another, it has become both easier to download and spirit away classified information, and easier to use digital trails to identify any leakers. In the digital age, should we still be using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, and how should we approach modern examples of leakers like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner? Bollinger and Stone gathered together about 30 experts in the fields of national security, journalism and academia to tackle the questions raised by 50 years of post-Pentagon Papers jurisprudence. The commission's report and essays from the various contributors were compiled into the book National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Bollinger and Stone discuss their experience working on the project, the developments they found most surprising, and some of the best practices suggested by the commission.

As the 50th anniversary of the Pentagon Papers case approached, First Amendment scholars Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone knew they wanted to mark the occasion somehow. Much has changed since RAND Corporation employee Daniel Ellsberg decided spend weeks photocopying some 7,000 pages of a classified report on the war in Vietnam and sneaking them out via his briefcase to be published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. For one thing, since 2011, the complete report has been made available to the public by the National Archives. For another, it has become both easier to download and spirit away classified information, and easier to use digital trails to identify any leakers. In the digital age, should we still be using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, and how should we approach modern examples of leakers like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner? Bollinger and Stone gathered together about 30 experts in the fields of national security, journalism and academia to tackle the questions raised by 50 years of post-Pentagon Papers jurisprudence. The commission's report and essays from the various contributors were compiled into the book National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Bollinger and Stone discuss their experience working on the project, the developments they found most surprising, and some of the best practices suggested by the commission.

As the 50th anniversary of the Pentagon Papers case approached, First Amendment scholars Lee Bollinger and Geoffrey Stone knew they wanted to mark the occasion somehow. Much has changed since RAND Corporation employee Daniel Ellsberg decided spend weeks photocopying some 7,000 pages of a classified report on the war in Vietnam and sneaking them out via his briefcase to be published by the New York Times and the Washington Post. For one thing, since 2011, the complete report has been made available to the public by the National Archives. For another, it has become both easier to download and spirit away classified information, and easier to use digital trails to identify any leakers. In the digital age, should we still be using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, and how should we approach modern examples of leakers like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and Reality Winner? Bollinger and Stone gathered together about 30 experts in the fields of national security, journalism and academia to tackle the questions raised by 50 years of post-Pentagon Papers jurisprudence. The commission's report and essays from the various contributors were compiled into the book National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On. In this episode of the Modern Law Library, Bollinger and Stone discuss their experience working on the project, the developments they found most surprising, and some of the best practices suggested by the commission.

We celebrate Pride Month and President Biden's decision not to fund the religiously repressive Hyde Amendment. After hearing the Cole Porter song "Experiment," we honor the legacy of U.S. Founder Thomas Paine by hearing his words in the song "The World Is My Country." Then we talk with leading constitutional scholar Geoffrey Stone about the Supreme Court's decision to accept a Mississippi case restricting abortion.

Jack Goldsmith sat down with Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, and Geoffrey Stone, the Edward H. Levy Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, to discuss their new book, "National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press: The Pentagon Papers Fifty Years On." They discussed the holding and legacy of the Pentagon Papers case, as well as some of the many challenges of applying the Pentagon Papers regime in the modern digital era that is characterized by massive leaks and a very different press landscape than the one that prevailed in 1971.

On March 7-8, 1986, The Federalist Society hosted its annual National Student Symposium at Stanford Law School. The topic of the conference was "The First Amendment: Constitutional Principles & Public Policy." The first day of the conference concluded with a panel on "The Political Process and the First Amendment."Featuring:Judge Robert Bork, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. CircuitProf. Lillian Bevier, Stanford Law SchoolProf. Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago Law SchoolCharles Cooper, Assistant Attorney General, Department of JusticeModerator: Dean John Hart Ely, Stanford Law School*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

In this episode, we speak with Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago Law School. We discuss the politicalization of the judiciary, Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, and the future of the Supreme Court. Note: This podcast was recorded prior to the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett on 10/26/2020

The Supreme Court today may be more politicized than any other time in U.S. history. With the expected confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump will have appointed three justices in less than four years, and the American public has come to see the bench as divided by “left” and “right.” But how can we bring the Court back in line with its Constitutional ideals? Prof. Geoffrey Stone, a distinguished scholar at the University of Chicago Law School, has spent his career studying the Supreme Court and the Constitution. In this episode, he explains the history of how the Supreme Court became a political institution—and how we may turn it around.

This episode, with former University of Chicago Law School Dean and University of Chicago Provos Geoffrey Stone, is part 1 of our Supreme Court Debrief. We discuss two cases this episode — Harris Funeral Home vs EEOC, which involved whether employers could fire transgender employees for how they sexually identify, and June Medical, which looked at whether a Louisiana law that required doctors who perform an abortion in a clinic to have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital was unconstitutional — along with Professor Stone's latest book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." Professor ​Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago. Professor Stone joined the faculty in 1973, after serving as a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. Professor Stone was appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which evaluated the government’s foreign intelligence surveillance programs in the wake of Edward Snowden’s leaks. He has also written amicus briefs for constitutional scholars in a number of Supreme Court cases, including Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality case, and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt, the abortion case involving admitting privileges for doctors in Texas. Intergenerational Politics is a video series created by Jill Wine-Banks and Victor Shi dedicated to engaging all generations in politics with weekly unfiltered conversations with experts across the nation.

This episode of The Future of Democracy takes a deep-dive on issues of speech and expression in a time of turbulence and change, with guest Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor and leading thinker on free speech in times of crisis. Mr. Stone is an Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service professor at the University of Chicago. After serving as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. of the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Stone joined the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School in 1973 and served as dean of the University of Chicago Law School (1987-1994) and Provost of the University of Chicago (1994-2002). Mr. Stone is the author or co-author of many books on constitutional law, including, among others, Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court (2020); The Free Speech Century (2019); Sex and the Constitution (2017); Top Secret: When Government Keeps Us In the Dark (2007); and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004).

Guest speakers include Geoffrey Stone, Judge Gary Feinerman, Simon James, Peggy Hamburg, Dr. Eric Terman, Michael Moskow, Andy Bluhm, Mike Knetter, David Snyderman, Harry Robinson, Boris Vladimirov, David Kostin, Joe Farrell, Vittorio Assaf, Keith Hennessey, Robert Kurzban, and Angus Deaton.

Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, discuss the landmark decisions of the Warren Court regarding desegregation, criminal justice and voting rights, and their new book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." They speak to host June Grasso.

Geoffrey Stone and David Strauss, professors at the University of Chicago Law School, discuss the landmark decisions of the Warren Court regarding desegregation, criminal justice and voting rights, and their new book, "Democracy and Equality: The Enduring Constitutional Vision of the Warren Court." They speak to host June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In this edition, host Jonathan Amarilio is joined by distinguished constitutional law scholar and University of Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey Stone for a discussion about current challenges surrounding the First Amendment and free speech. They talk about what constitutes a public forum on social media, whether private social media companies like Twitter, Facebook and Google have the right to censor speech, President Trump’s Twitter feed, speech on college campuses, campaign financing and more. Special thanks to our sponsors, CourtFiling.net.  

Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago, discusses Justice Clarence Thomas’s call for the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which protects news organizations from most libel suits when they write about public figures. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago, discusses Justice Clarence Thomas's call for the Supreme Court to overturn the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling, which protects news organizations from most libel suits when they write about public figures. He speaks to Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in "Schenck v. United States" is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Because of it we have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but the context is always shifting. In this fascinating talk Bollinger and Stone explore how our understanding of the First Amendment has been transformed over time, and how it may change in the future to cope with social media and other challenges.

Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University, and Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago, discuss their new book, "The Free Speech Century," a collection of essays by some of the nation’s leading constitutional scholars on the evolution of free speech doctrine. They speak to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

Lee Bollinger, the President of Columbia University, and Geoffrey Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago, discuss their new book, "The Free Speech Century," a collection of essays by some of the nation's leading constitutional scholars on the evolution of free speech doctrine. They speak to Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in "Schenck v. United States" is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Because of it we have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but the context is always shifting. In this fascinating talk Bollinger and Stone explore how our understanding of the First Amendment has been transformed over time, and how it may change in the future to cope with social media and other challenges.

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in "Schenck v. United States" is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Because of it we have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but the context is always shifting. In this fascinating talk Bollinger and Stone explore how our understanding of the First Amendment has been transformed over time, and how it may change in the future to cope with social media and other challenges.

In a new collection of essays called The Free Speech Century, leading First Amendment thinkers reflect on the law's trajectory over the last 100 years. On The Media's Brooke Gladstone spoke with co-editor Geoffrey Stone and law professor Laura Weinrib about how our free speech rights are still evolving. 

UChicago Law professor Geoffrey Stone has an intimate knowledge of the Supreme Court. From his time as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan where he witnessed the decision Roe v. Wade firsthand, to his decades writing on issues of free speech, to helping shape the University of Chicago’s own policy on free expression, Stone is an expert when it comes to the First Amendment. But in all his years studying the highest court in the United States, Stone says he has never been more pessimistic for where the judiciary branch is headed. Stone discusses the current state of the court, the forgotten history of Roe v. Wade, and free speech on college campuses on this episode of Big Brains.

Ross Douthat delivered these remarks on January 17, 2018 at the University of Chicago. Geoffrey Stone, Laurie Zoloth, William Schweiker, and William Cavanaugh responded. Willemien Otten moderated. To view the video of the exchange visit www.lumenchristi.org/events/970.

In the wake of hate group rallies and protests of controversial speakers on college campuses, how far does the right to free speech extend? What are its limits? Should the federal government and universities be empowered to place further restrictions on speech, or would further curtailments do more harm than good? Join us as we discuss with Professor Geoffrey Stone, Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and Professor Genevieve Lakier, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. This episode of Briefly, a production of the University of Chicago Law Review, was produced by Tom Molloy and John Tienken. Music from www.bensound.com. Special thanks to the entire online team, including Grace Bridwell, Tom Garvey, Noel Ottman, and Kathryn Running, and our Editor in Chief Pat Ward and Executive Editor Kyle Jorstad. Thanks for listening!

Journalism professor Brooke Kroeger reveals the role of prominent men in New York society who helped women get the vote almost a century ago. Law professor Geoffrey Stone has written a history of “Sex and the Constitution,” showing how abortion, obscenity, and contraception were no big deal before the evangelical movement of the 1800s. And Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List talks with Bill Press about the surge in women running for office.   Support the Show Are you tired of Tea Party Republicans and Rush Limbaugh dominating the airwaves? Do you want the facts you won't get on Fox -- or even on CNN? Then stay tuned.     Brooke Kroeger Brooke Kroeger, a journalist and author, has written an interesting account of how prominent men worked a century ago to get passage of the women’s suffrage amendment.   Geoffrey Stone It’s getting harder and harder to be a good Christian, says law professor Geoffrey Stone, author of a book about sex and the Constitution. He reveals that the state with the most internet porn is … Utah!   Stephanie Schriock Bill Press interviews Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List.   Jim Hightower GOP playing political games with people's health

Last week, Judge Richard Posner suddenly retired from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after nearly 36 years on the bench. The 1981 President Reagan appointee authored over 3,300 judicial opinions during his tenure and is widely considered one of the most vocal, provocative, and influential appellate court judges of all time. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we hear Judge Posner’s candid thoughts on the First Amendment as we play for you a conversation he had with Professor Geoffrey Stone on May 16, 2016, at the University of Chicago Law School. In this wide-ranging and candid dialogue, Judge Posner discusses his views on executive power in wartime, including why he believes President Franklin Roosevelt was justified in interning Japanese-Americans during World War II and why President Abraham Lincoln was right to ignore the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex Parte Merryman. He also addresses Citizens United v. FEC (“terrible”), the Supreme Court in general (“a mediocre institution”), McCullen v. Coakley, the Pentagon Papers, flag burning, and much, much more. This podcast is presented as part of So to Speak’s exclusive partnership with the First Amendment Salon. The First Amendment Salon is a quarterly gathering of members of the First Amendment community for a 90-minute discussion with leading thinkers concerning a timely topic related to freedom of expression. VIDEO: youtu.be/bhLJliXX848 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

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about sex – though the Declaration of Independence promoted the pursuit of happiness – but for the past hundred years or so, courts have been in our bedrooms. Law Professor Geoffrey Stone has the low-down. One hundred years after women won the right to vote, professor Brooke Kroeger reveals the role that men – or “suffragents” – played in the movement. And commentator Alexi McCammond of Axios talks with Peter Ogburn on the Bill Press Show about the friction between Trump and Congress.   Support the Show Are you tired of Tea Party Republicans and Rush Limbaugh dominating the airwaves? Do you want the facts you won't get on Fox -- or even on CNN? Then stay tuned.     Geoffrey Stone For most of history, society had no problem with contraception, abortion, or obscenity … until state legislatures and courts became obsessed with sex. Professor Geoffrey Stone says it was because of the evangelical movement.   Brooke Kroeger One hundred years ago… it was the pillars of New York society – men of industry, law, and letters – who marched for and helped win women’s right to vote. Professor Brooke Kroeger tells the story of the “suffragents.”   Alexi McCammond Guest host Peter Ogburn interviews commentator Alexi McCammond on the Bill Press Show.   Jim Hightower Trump versus the wisdom of Robert E. Lee

Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago law professor and author, speaks with David Axelrod about his impressions of his former law school student, James Comey; the likelihood that Roe v. Wade will be overturned in President Trump's term and the consequences that would have for the country; and what surprised him when he served on a panel appointed by President Obama to make recommendations on oversight matters within the National Security Agency.

In our remote recording location and with returning election-law expert Lori Ringhand, we talk about the election. The electoral college, the moral and legal roles of electors, disputed elections in the House, crises, civil wars. Oh my. (Back in OA World Headquarters for next week’s show.) This show’s links: Lori Ringhand’s faculty profile (http://www.law.uga.edu/profile/lori-ringhand) and writing (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=332414) The Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/amend1.asp#12) (including a link to some superseding language of the Twentieth Amendment) Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp) Rick Hasen’s link to California’s brief against unbinding California’s Electors (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=89979) Geoffrey Stone, Electors Against Trump Are Faithful Not Faithless (http://time.com/4597387/faithless-electors-donald-trump/) Lawrence Lessig, The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-constitution-lets-the-electoral-college-choose-the-winner-they-should-choose-clinton/2016/11/24/0f431828-b0f7-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html?utm_term=.a63723e54c11); Orin Kerr, The Electoral College Shouldn’t Choose Clinton: A Response to Lessig (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/25/the-electoral-college-shouldnt-choose-clinton-a-response-to-lessig/?utm_term=.e20924ee8ab4); Lawrence Lessig, A Response to Professor Kerr (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/a-response-to-professor-kerr-657e3d9147d2#.320laj58w); Orin Kerr, A Reply to Professor Lessig on the Electoral College (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/12/01/a-reply-to-professor-lessig-on-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.3016b02fb393) Rick Hasen, Lessig Urges Faithless Electors Vote for Clinton, Pointing to Popular Vote in a Contest Not Based on Popular Vote (https://electionlawblog.org/?p=89486); Lawrence Lessig, Rick Hasen: “But Not to Ignore It…”: What Is “It”? (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/rick-hasen-but-not-to-ignore-it-what-is-it-59aaf4f0f0a3#.fxivalmbe); Mike Parsons, On “Hamilton Electors” and the Lessig/Hasen Debate (https://moderndemocracyblog.com/2016/12/03/on-hamilton-electors-and-the-lessighasen-debate/) Lawrence Lessig, The Equal Protection Argument Against “Winner Take All” in the Electoral College (http://billmoyers.com/story/equal-protection-argument-winner-take-electoral-college/); Lawrence Lessig, On the Equal Protect Clause Argument and the National Popular Vote Project (https://medium.com/equal-citizens/on-the-equal-protect-clause-argument-and-the-national-popular-vote-project-f4d75901151b#.kzkrq46f4) Dahlia Lithwick and David Cohen, Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/14/opinion/buck-up-democrats-and-fight-like-republicans.html) David Corn, A Veteran Spy Has Given the FBI Information Alleging a Russian Operation to Cultivate Donald Trump (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump) John Broich, How US Journalists Normalized the Rise of Hitler and Mussolini (http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-12-13/how-us-journalists-normalized-rise-hitler-and-mussolini-0) (citing Dorothy Thompson’s 1935 observation: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance.”) Special Guest: Lori Ringhand.

Scholars and activists explore the future of free expression at U.S. universities. The speakers are PEN America Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, University of Missouri student activist Storm Ervin, civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson, and University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone. This live program was presented in partnership with PEN America on November 17, 2016. This show was engineered by David Stotz and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Go to bit.ly/wethepeoplepodcast to share your feedback. The survey closes November 30. 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 at Panoply.fm. 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.

Scholars and activists explore the future of free expression at U.S. universities. The speakers are PEN America Executive Director Suzanne Nossel, First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams, University of Missouri student activist Storm Ervin, civil rights activist DeRay Mckesson, and University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone. This live program was presented in partnership with PEN America on November 17, 2016. This show was engineered by David Stotz and edited by Jason Gregory. It was produced by Nicandro Iannacci. Research was provided by Lana Ulrich and Tom Donnelly. The host of We the People is Jeffrey Rosen. Get the latest constitutional news, and continue the conversation, on Facebook and Twitter. We want to know what you think of the podcast! Go to bit.ly/wethepeoplepodcast to share your feedback. The survey closes November 30. 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 at Panoply.fm. 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.

TAKEOVER is a special series of episodes that puts you on the ground during the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado. This episode features Emily Yoffe (The Atlantic) as takeover host in conversation with Bryan Stevenson (Equal Justice Initiative), Helen Fisher (The Kinsey Institute, Match.com), and Geoffrey Stone (Univ. of Chicago Law School). Yoffe asks probing questions and touches on issues such as the Supreme Court, politics, and love and sex. Music: Gillicuddy, Podington Bear

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law dissect the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and explore current debates over its meaning.

Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School and Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law dissect the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and explore current debates over its meaning.

Geoffrey Stone Edward H Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School How did American intelligence agencies respond to the threats posed after 9/11? Professor Geoffrey R. Stone, who served on president Obama’s five-person Review Group that was charged with evaluating the nation’s foreign intelligence programs after the Snowden revelations, will offer a behind-the-scenes peek into the secret world of US national security surveillance. He will discuss both the merits and dangers of some of the nation’s most controversial foreign intelligence programs and he will outline some of the ways in which those programs can be reformed to strike a better balance between liberty and security in the future. Geoffrey R. Stone is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and the author or co-author of many books on US constitutional law, including Top Secret: When Our Government Keeps Us in the Dark (2007), War and Liberty: An American Dilemma (2007), and Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime (2004). Perilous Times received eight national book awards, including the Los Angeles Times Book Prize for the Best Book of the Year in History. In the 2013, Mr. Stone served on the five-member Review Group appointed by President Obama to make recommendations concerning NSA surveillance and related issues. Mr. Stone currently serves as a Member of the Senior Advisory Group to the Director of National Intelligence.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Interview with Prof. Geoffrey Stone, a member of the NSA Review Panel

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor Geoffrey Stone talks about his involvement in the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology. Organized by the Office of the Dean of Students and recorded on February 4, 2014.

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor Geoffrey Stone talks about his involvement in the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology. Organized by the Office of the Dean of Students and recorded on February 4, 2014.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Since Edward Snowden publically revealed the existence of the NSA’s domestic data collection and surveillance programs last year, a national debate has erupted over personal privacy and national security. How did we get here? And what’s at stake for individuals and the government? NSA review panel member and University of Chicago Law Professor Geoffrey Stone takes us behind the scenes of the panel’s deliberations and inside the NSA’s surveillance operation.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Geoffrey Stone, professor and former dean ('93-'02) at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses the role of freedom and education in America today.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Geoffrey Stone, professor and former dean ('93–'02) at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses the role of freedom and education in America today.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses how the Supreme Court confirmation process has changed over the years and whether members of the Senate are more prone to oppose nominees today. Stone examines the process by which the Senate does—or does not—confirm a President's nominees to the Supreme Court.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Geoffrey Stone, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, discusses how the Supreme Court confirmation process has changed over the years and whether members of the Senate are more prone to oppose nominees today. Stone examines the process by which the Senate does—or does not—confirm a President's nominees to the Supreme Court.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In 1972-73, Geoffrey Stone served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. The 1972 Term was an eventful one for the Supreme Court, resulting in landmark decisions in such areas as obscenity, equal protection, abortion, and criminal procedure. Moreover, the 1972 Term marked a critical transition from the "liberal" era of the Warren Court to a new era, which has now lasted for almost forty years, in which the Court has been dominated by increasingly "conservative" justices. Professor Stone will discuss his experiences and insights during the Court's 1972 Term.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. In 1972-73, Geoffrey Stone served as a law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. The 1972 Term was an eventful one for the Supreme Court, resulting in landmark decisions in such areas as obscenity, equal protection, abortion, and criminal procedure. Moreover, the 1972 Term marked a critical transition from the "liberal" era of the Warren Court to a new era, which has now lasted for almost forty years, in which the Court has been dominated by increasingly "conservative" justices. Professor Stone will discuss his experiences and insights during the Court's 1972 Term.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. Jonathan Cole has written the definitive work on the American research university. A monumental achievement, The Great American University explores the complex historical and cultural reasons for the international preeminence of American higher education, documents the profound contributions American research universities have made, and continue to make, to our nation and to the world, and identifies and analyzes the dangers that now threaten to undermine one of the strongest pillars of American excellence.-Geoffrey Stone

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. On a university campus, such as the University of Chicago, the freedom individuals have in expressing ideas is not the same as the freedom the institution has taking positions.Provost Thomas Rosenbaum organized a Friday, May 8 forum to discuss the "Role of Free Speech on Campus," and a full range of responses emerged as a faculty panel debated such issues along with members of the University community."Throughout its history, the University of Chicago has embraced and defended the value of intense inquiry and informed argument," Rosenbaum told an audience of about 50 students, faculty and staff."Free speech is not easy. We will explore today tensions related to creating and sustaining an environment that allows for open, rigorous, and intense inquiry and debate, while at the same time fostering civil discourse, both on campus and in the classroom," Rosenbaum said.The faculty panel, which Mark Hansen, Dean of the Division of Social Sciences, moderated, included Geoffrey Stone, the Edward Levi Distinguished Service Professor in the Law School and the College; Margaret M. Mitchell, Professor in the Divinity School; and Ram~A^3n Guti~A(c)rrez, the Preston & Sterling Morton Distinguished Service Professor in History and the College. As their point of reference, the panelists used the report of the Kalven Committee on the University's Role in Political and Social Action. The report, issued in 1967, describes the role of the University and its students and faculty on issues of corporate and individual expression.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. On a university campus, such as the University of Chicago, the freedom individuals have in expressing ideas is not the same as the freedom the institution has taking positions.Provost Thomas Rosenbaum organized a Friday, May 8 forum to discuss the "Role of Free Speech on Campus," and a full range of responses emerged as a faculty panel debated such issues along with members of the University community."Throughout its history, the University of Chicago has embraced and defended the value of intense inquiry and informed argument," Rosenbaum told an audience of about 50 students, faculty and staff."Free speech is not easy. We will explore today tensions related to creating and sustaining an environment that allows for open, rigorous, and intense inquiry and debate, while at the same time fostering civil discourse, both on campus and in the classroom," Rosenbaum said.The faculty panel, which Mark Hansen, Dean of the Division of Social Sciences, moderated, included Geoffrey Stone, the Edward Levi Distinguished Service Professor in the Law School and the College; Margaret M. Mitchell, Professor in the Divinity School; and Ram~A^3n Guti~A(c)rrez, the Preston & Sterling Morton Distinguished Service Professor in History and the College. As their point of reference, the panelists used the report of the Kalven Committee on the University's Role in Political and Social Action. The report, issued in 1967, describes the role of the University and its students and faculty on issues of corporate and individual expression.

If you experience any technical difficulties with this video or would like to make an accessibility-related request, please send a message to digicomm@uchicago.edu. A common perception is that since the Supreme Court frequently divides 5-4, it is balanced between conservatives and liberals. The vote breakdown, however, does not tell us anything about the Court's ideological breakdown. The Supreme Court has discretionary jurisdiction, and any group of nine justices will tend to choose cases that divide them because those cases are the ones that are the most legally uncertain.On April 14, 2009, Professor Geoffrey Stone presented a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas lecture series entitled "Obama's Supreme Court." He discussed what he thinks the makeup of the current Court really is. (Throwing the word "Obama" in the title is a good way to get people in the door.) In a series of entries on Huffington Post, he describes what follows in more depth.First, Professor Stone served up some facts about the current Court. Seven of the nine sitting Justices were appointed by Republicans, as were twelve of the last fourteen appointees. The so-called "swing" vote on the Court has shifted from Justice Stewart to Powell to O'Connor to Kennedy, each of whom is widely considered more conservative than the last. According to an article by Professor Landes and Judge Posner, four of the current Justices are more conservative than any Justice since 1937 except Rehnquist. Finally, there are not any "full-throated" liberals like Justice Marshall or Brennan on the Court.