Podcast appearances and mentions of ronald collins

United States v. Ronald Collins

United States v. Ronald Collins

On today’s episode of So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast, we partner with the First Amendment Salon to present a conversation between former Solicitor General of the United States Donald B. Verrilli Jr. and University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins. Verrilli was solicitor general of the United States from June 2011 to June 2016 and during that time he argued dozens of cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, including many First Amendment cases. He is now a partner with Munger, Tolles & Olson, and the founder of its Washington, D.C. office. During this conversation, Verrilli and Collins discuss Verrilli’s advocacy in front of the Supreme Court on First Amendment cases and beyond. Verrilli also provides his take on the future of the court. 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.A video version of this and past First Amendment Salon conversations can be found on FIRE’s YouTube page. To learn more about the First Amendment Salon, visit the Salon’s archive on FIRE’s First Amendment Library. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcastEmail us: sotospeak@thefire.org

How should we think about speech rights in the age of artificial intelligence and advanced robotics? On today’s episode of So to Speak, we are joined by First Amendment scholars Ronald Collins and David Skover. They are the authors of the new book, Robotica: Speech Rights & Artificial Intelligence. From the printing press to the internet, advances in communications technology often upset the established order and spawn demands for censorship. There is little reason to suspect advances in artificial intelligence will be treated differently. As free speech advocates, how should we respond to these demands? To answer that question, Collins and Skover argue that we need to take a step back and ask some more fundamental questions about the values we seek to advance in protecting speech in the first place. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.orgCall in a question: 215-315-0100

It was 100 years ago this month that the Espionage Act of 1917 was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson, making it a crime to interfere with the operations of the United States military. During its lifetime, the act has had a troubled history with the First Amendment. It has been used to criminalize wartime dissent, restrict press freedom, and prosecute government whistleblowers. On today’s episode of So to Speak, we speak with University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins about the Espionage Act and its continuing relevance to civil liberties advocates. We also venture into a slightly unrelated discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case In re Anastaplo (1961), which reveals the sort of risks that accompany standing up for one’s rights during times of uncertainty. 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

Simon Tam likes to quote Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous line — paraphrased from transcendentalist Theodore Parker’s earlier statement — that “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” That said, Tam likes to add that the arc doesn’t bend on its own. It takes courageous individuals willing to stand up for their rights for justice to be achieved. Tam can now add himself to the list of those who bore the cost of standing up for their rights — and found justice. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled in Matal v. Tam that the First Amendment prohibits the United States Patent and Trademark Office from denying trademark registration for the name of Tam’s rock band, The Slants, because it allegedly “disparages” Asians. The PTO didn’t care that Tam, the founder of and bass player for The Slants, is himself of Asian descent — as are all the band members — or that Tam picked the name to celebrate Asian heritage, not disparage it. On today’s special “extra” episode of So to Speak, we speak with University of Washington School of Law scholar Ronald Collins and FIRE Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow Zachary Greenberg about the decision. We also feature an April interview we conducted with The Slants about the case at FIRE’s Philadelphia office. To close out the show, The Slants perform two acoustic songs for your listening pleasure. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Video: https://youtu.be/iqr6l-mEGCA 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

On April 2, the Supreme Court issued its latest blockbuster ruling on campaign finance, McCutcheon v. FEC, striking down the "aggregate" contribution limits on how much money any one person can contribute to election campaigns (leaving untouched the "base" limits on donations to individual candidates or party committees). Within days of the decision, while pundits and activists were still battling in the media, two e-books were published about the case. One was by Shaun McCutcheon himself, an Alabama engineer who has quickly gone from political neophyte to Supreme Court plaintiff, thus providing a rare first-person layman's account of high-stakes litigation. The other was by two law professors specializing in the First Amendment, Ronald Collins and David Skover, who dissect the Court's ruling and put it in the broader context of campaign finance regulation. Please join us to hear about McCutcheon and its implications for our political system from authors with unique perspectives on the subject. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

We finally get around to talking about oral argument on Oral Argument. And, oh do we do so in style. Supreme Court advocate and SCOTUSblog co-founder Tom Goldstein joins us for a portion of the show to talk about what oral arguments are, whether they are worth their costs, what they accomplish, and more. Joe complains about absurd hypotheticals. Christian is unfamiliar with any other kind. Also, we begin with errata, in which we acknowledge Christian’s abuse of the English language. This show’s links: Tom Goldstein’s profile and law firm SCOTUSblog and its About page Oral Argument Episode 17: Flesh List, with Kim Krawiec Kim’s posts here and here about her appearance and with some follow-up information Subsume Oyez, a resource for, among other things, audio of Supreme Court oral arguments dating back at least to the 1950s The U.S. Supreme Court’s own pages for oral argument transcripts and audio Barry Sullivan, Other Minds: The Use and Uses of Oral Argument Epstein, Landes, and Posner, Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument Wikipedia, collecting sources, on Justice Thomas’ approach to oral argument The Oyez page for Loving v. Virginia, which links to the audio of the oral argument in the historic case striking down state bans on interracial marriage Ronald Collins, Hypothetically Speaking: Justice Breyer’s Dialectical Propensities Joshua Stein, Tentative Oral Opinions: Improving Oral Argument Without Spending a Dime Oyez page for Kelo v. City of New London Oral argument transcript in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, just search for “King Tut” within this document Adam Liptak, A Taxonomy of Supreme Court Humor Jay Wexler, Laugh Track II - Still Laughin’! Special Guest: Tom Goldtsein.

Guest Ronald Collins, Harold S. Shefelman Scholar at the University of Washington School of Law, speaks with Diane Horn about his book, "We Must Not Be Afraid to Be Free: Stories of Free Expression in America," co-authored with Sam Chaltain.