Podcasts about Stanford Law Review

Nos últimos anos, a interseccionalidade se popularizou. A palavra aparece no título de vários livros, em documentos oficiais de governos e até em artigos de opinião analisando o Big Brother, publicados em revistas de grande circulação, mas afinal o que é a interseccionalidade? Qual a origem dessa ideia? E como aplicá-la? Esse episódio, que inaugura nossa linha de breves introduções incendiadas, buscará responder essas questões. O objetivo não é esgotar o assunto, mas oferecer uma introdução rápida, porém de qualidade, além de indicar uma trilha de leitura. Para aprofundar o estudo: AKOTIRENE, Carla. Interseccionalidade. São Paulo: Pólen, 2019.BILGE, Sirma. Intersectionality Undone: Saving Intersectionality from Feminist Intersectionality Studies. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, v. 10, n. 2, p. 405–424, ed 2013. COLLINS, Patricia Hill. Intersectionality as critical social theory. Durham: Duke University Press, 2019. COLLINS, Patricia Hill; BILGE, Sirma. Interseccionalidade. São Paulo: Boitempo Editorial, 2021. CRENSHAW, Kimberlé. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, v. 1989, n. 1, p. 139–167, 1989. CRENSHAW, Kimberlé. Documento para o encontro de especialistas em aspectos da discriminação racial relativos ao gênero. Estudos feministas, Florianópolis, v. 1, 2002. CRENSHAW, Kimberlé. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, v. 43, n. 6, p. 1241–1299, 1991. HANCOCK, Ange-Marie. Intersectionality: an intellectual history. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016 HIRATA, Helena. Gênero, classe e raça Interseccionalidade e consubstancialidade das relações sociais. Tempo Social, v. 26, p. 61–73, jun. 2014. KERGOAT, Danièle. Dinâmica e consubstancialidade das relações sociais. Novos estudos CEBRAP, p. 93–103, mar. 2010. PUAR, Jasbir. “Prefiro ser um ciborgue a ser uma deusa”: interseccionalidade, agenciamento e política afetiva. Meritum, Revista de Direito da Universidade FUMEC, 2013. YUVAL-DAVIS, Nira. Intersectionality and Feminist Politics. European Journal of Women's Studies, v. 13, n. 3, p. 193–209, 1 ago. 2006.

Ekow Yankah discusses his forthcoming Stanford Law Review article, “Deputization and Privileged White Violence.” Prof. Yankah unpacks how the development of social and physical control of slaves necessitated laws and norms that allowed any white person the ability to police a person of color. This white privilege continues today in the self-deputization and citizen ‘s […]

Congress, worried that TikTok may be unduly subject to Chinese government control, passed a law that would in effect stop TikTok from being made available in the U.S. unless it's sold off to a non-China-linked company. This morning (Dec. 6), the federal D.C. Circuit upheld the law against a First Amendment challenge (and some other legal challenges); Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh explain. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Recorded on Thursday, November 21, 2024, in the wake of the announcement by the International Criminal Court that arrest warrants have been issued for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, I sought out the insights and expertise of renowned legal scholar Professor Avi Bell, in order to gain his insights into this dreadful development, and to bring his conclusion to you by way of this conversation. Professor Avi Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar Ilan University and the University of San Diego School of Law. His fields of academic research include property and intellectual property law, international law, the laws of war, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Professor Bell is considered one of the leading researchers in Israel in the field of economic analysis of law, and he is a member of the Israeli Law & Economics Association as well as the American Law & Economics Association. His papers have been published in leading law journals including Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review and Columbia Law Review. Bell received his BA and JD from the University of Chicago and his doctorate from Harvard University. He was director of the Global Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs from 2008-2009.I hope you get as much out of this conversation as I did and I encourage you to spread this discussion far and wide. Purchase your ticket to The MirYam Institute Annual Regional Briefing, 2024 in NYC, here.Support the showThe MirYam Institute. Israel's Future in Israel's Hands.Subscribe to our podcast: https://podfollow.com/1493910771Follow The MirYam Institute X: https://bit.ly/3jkeUyxFollow Benjamin Anthony X: https://bit.ly/3hZeOe9Like Benjamin Anthony Facebook: https://bit.ly/333Ct93Like The MirYam Institute Facebook: https://bit.ly/2SarHI3Follow Benjamin Anthony Instagram: https://bit.ly/30m6uPGFollow The MirYam Institute Instagram: https://bit.ly/3l5fvED

How does European free speech law differ from American free speech law, when it comes to “hate speech,” blasphemy, and misinformation? Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh welcome Jacob Mchangama, who is CEO of The Future of Free Speech; research professor of political science at Vanderbilt; the author of Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media and other works on free speech; Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; and a trained Danish lawyer who is one of the leading experts in comparative free speech law. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Can you sue protesters who block the street in front of your business? Protesters who block your way to work? People who are trying to get you fired? Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer, who have written and taught about tort law as well as free speech law, discuss all these questions and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss calls to restrict misinformation, from the Sedition Act of 1798 to Hurricane Helene. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

We're making it easy for you to judge the job performances of your members of Congress! In this episode, Jen tells you about a list of single issue votes that were taken in the House and Senate during the 118th Congress. Most importantly, we gave you all the information you need to find your members' voting records in this episode's show notes. You can find your 2024 Congressional Election Study guide in the episode 301 show notes on www.congressionaldish.com. Happy voting! Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Enacted Laws Congressional Dish Episode: ← find how your Representative voted here ← find how your Senator voted here Effects of H.R. 7888: Expands the number of people allowed to be legally spied on by the U.S. government and the number of people with information stored in the FISA database (which has information about Americans whose data has been collected along with information about foreigners). It does so by… Giving the Department of Justice (DOJ) permission to search the FISA database to vet foreigners who are applying for tourist visas to visit the United States and Expanding the definition of ‘foreign intelligence' to include counter narcotics targets. Expands the number of companies who get legal immunity for turning our information over to the government by expanding the definition of “electronic communications service provider”. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is no longer legally allowed to search the FISA database solely to find evidence of a crime. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is prohibited from using uncorroborated information from political groups or anonymous sources in press reports to get FISA warrants. Limits the number of people within the government who are allowed to search through the database. Background Sources for H.R. 7888: INTEL.gov. Michael Horowitz. April 27, 2023. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. Jonathan Turley. December 14, 2019. The Hill. Conor Clarke. February 2014. Stanford Law Review. “The Biggs Amendment” to H.R. 7888 [failed] ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effect of the Biggs Amendment: Would require U.S. government officials to get a warrant before searching through the FISA database for information about U.S. citizens or companies, with emergency exceptions. Congressional Dish Episode: ← find how your Representative voted here Effects of H.R. 7521: It is now illegal for companies to provide internet hosting services, distribute, and/or update “foreign adversary controlled applications”, websites, or games, which are partially owned by a foreign person and are determined by the President - with no proof required - to pose “a significant threat to the national security of the United States.” Establishes a process that allows companies to host, distribute, and/or update if the app, website, or game changes ownership. If companies host, distribute, and/or update the targeted apps, websites, or games, the companies are subject to fines that - depending on the user base of the targeted app, website, or game - can be hundreds of billions of dollars. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 8034: Provide almost $26 billion to Israel. 64% of the money would be for war expenses 35% of the money would be for humanitarian purposes Less than 1% of the money would be for diplomatic expenses Provide $400 million for FEMA Background Sources for H.R. 8034: April 17, 2024. Al Jazeera. Fatima Al-Kassab. January 26, 2024. NPR. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 8035: Provide over $60 billion for Ukraine (and other neighboring countries) 83% of the money would be for war expenses 16.5% of the money would be for humanitarian expenses Less than 0.5% of the money would be for diplomatic expenses Provide $341 million for production of nuclear weapons materials and nuclear nonproliferation programs House Bills ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 7023: Double the length of permits to discharge pollutants in waterways from 5 years to 10 years Removes the EPA administrators ability to prohibit discharges in specific disposal sites if he determines that the discharge of materials will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas, wildlife, or recreational areas after a disposal permit has been issued. Creates nationwide permits to allow for transmission projects for people, water, wastewater, carbon dioxide, fuel, and oil and gas pipelines that do not result in a “loss greater than 1/2 acre of waters of the United States for each single and complete project” In reissuing these nationwide permits, the EPA would not be required to consult with a state nor any other Federal agency and these permits will get to short cut environmental assessments that are required by the National Environmental Policy Act. Limits judicial review Puts a 60 day time limit after the permit is issued for a judicial review Doesn't allow anyone who didn't file a comment during the public comment period to file a lawsuit. If someone did file a comment, they may not file a lawsuit about anything that they didn't address in their comment. Prohibits the court from vacating, revoking, or limiting the permit unless the court finds that the activities authorized “present an imminent and substantial danger to human health or the environment for which there is not other equitable remedy available under the law' Approves an end-of-Trump administration EPA approval for Florida to administer Clean Water Act permitting. Background Sources for H.R. 7023: Becky Bohrer and Patrick Whittle. January 31, 2023. PBS News. July 19, 2016. Earthjustice. Earthjustice. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 1435: Prohibit states from banning fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines in cars and trucks. Effectively revokes the EPA waiver that allows California to ban the sale of fossil fuel burning cars. Background Sources for H.R. 1435: Jeff St. John. September 23, 2020. Greentech Media. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended effects of H.R. 7176: Give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the “exclusive authority” to approve or deny applications to export natural gas from the United States to a foreign country, which eliminates requirements for Department of Energy approval and provisions to address free trade agreements. Deems exportation or importation of natural gas to be in the public interest. Background Sources for H.R. 7176: September 26, 2024. National Drought Mitigation Center. Zachary-Taylor Wright. September 17, 2024. MySA. Steven Santana. July 23, 2024. MySA. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 6543: Requires providers of short term lodging (hotels and AirBnBs) and Internet platforms that advertise and sell short term lodging to display the total price including all mandatory fees, except for government taxes and fees. ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 3950: Requires ticket issuers and secondary market ticket issuers to clearly display the total ticket price, including all fees, at the time the ticket price is first displayed and provides an itemized list of charges before the ticket purchasing process is complete. Prohibits ticket issuers and secondary market ticket issuers from selling tickets that they do not physically possess at the time of sale. Prohibits secondary ticket issuers from using the word ‘official' or similar words implying a partnership in their marketing and search engine wording unless they have the consent of the venue, team, or artist. Requires ticket issuers to provide a refund or a similar ticket to a rescheduled event, with the approval of the customer, if an event is canceled or postponed (except for in case of a natural disaster or other event beyond the ticket issuer's control). ← find how your Representative voted here Intended Effects of H.R. 4639: Prohibits law enforcement or the intelligence community from buying customer or subscriber information directly from companies or from data brokers. Any information “illegitimately obtained” is not allowed to be used against us in court. Has exceptions for FISA surveillance of foreigners. Limits immunity for companies that comply with surveillance orders and do not stop the surveillance when a court order is denied. Background Sources for H.R. 4639: Carly Page. July 18, 2022. TechCrunch. Senior Advisory Group Panel on Commercially Available Information. January 27, 2022. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Byron Tau. June 19, 2020. The Wall Street Journal. Senate Bills ← find how your Senator voted here Intended Effects of S. 316: Repeal the authorizations for US military operations in Iraq that were passed in 1991 and 2002. Background Sources for S. 316: Meghann Myers. January 25, 2024. Military Times. ← find how your Senator voted here Intended Effects of S. 4072: To prevent the enforcement of the , which would set stricter standards for fossil fuel burning cars and trucks that would be phased in between model year 2027 and 2032. Prohibits enforcement of any similar rule that could be written in the future. The standards could be met via the production of cleaner fossil fuel powered vehicles, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. EPA estimates the air pollution reductions would provide ~$13 billion in reduced annual health care costs by preventing the emission of thousands of tons of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. EPA estimates the new standards would save Americans $46 billion per year in fuel costs and $16 billion per year due to reduced maintenance and repair costs for drivers, totaling ~$6,000 over the course of a new vehicle's lifetime. ← find how your Senator voted here Intended Effects of S. 4445: Guarantees an individual's rights to receive fertility treatment, make decisions regarding the donation, use, storage, and disposal of oocytes, sperm, fertilized eggs and embryos, and enter contracts with health care providers to enact those decisions. Guarantees a health provider's right to provide fertility treatments and provide for testing, use, storage, shipping, and disposal of genetic material including oocytes, sperm, fertilized eggs, and embryos. Guarantees a health insurance provider's right to cover fertility treatments. Guarantees a manufacturer's right to manufacture, import, market, sell, and distribute drugs and devices that are used for fertility treatments. Allows lawsuits against any State or individual who interferes with the right to fertility treatments by the Attorney General, health care providers, and individuals adversely affected. This would supersede any State law regardless of when it was enacted and prohibits enforcement of any state law that is in conflict with these rights. Requires the Department of Defense to provide fertility treatments (specifically three egg retrievals and unlimited embryo transfers) to active duty military members and their spouses. Requires health plans, Medicaid, and Medicare that cover obstetrical (child birth related) services to also provide coverage for fertility treatments. Background sources for S. 4445: Maya C. Miller. September 17, 2024. The New York Times. Alander Rocha. April 3, 2024. Alabama Reflector. Alander Rocha. February 19, 2024. Alabama Reflector. Audio Sources March 21, 2024 Clips Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA): My colleagues have criticized EPA's use of its Clean Water Act review or veto authority. Yet, the record shows EPA's use of this authority has been consistent with congressional intent. I see no reason for removing this authority. Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972, EPA has only exercised this authority 14 times—most recently in relation to large-scale mining proposals in Alaska and West Virginia. EPA's use of this authority has, in fact, been bipartisan. EPA used it 2 times during Democratic administrations and 12 times during Republican administrations. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): This bill will cut red tape, strengthen the permitting process in favor of those seeking the permits, provide clarity to the EPA to ensure that they are following what the law intends, and, most importantly, fight back against the militant climate agenda. Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO): Our court system is already being attacked from every angle. Let's not let the environmentalists continue to manipulate the courts to push their climate religion. It should be an efficient and speedy process so businesses can build the infrastructure that our country depends on. Rep. David Rouser (R-NC): Mr. Chairman, in closing, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, which provides energy predictability and certainty that our utilities, energy, manufacturing, and agricultural industries need to succeed, which are so critical to American greatness in energy, food production, and the manufacturing necessary to improve the standard of living of every American. That is what this is about, Mr. Chairman. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Eugene Volokh and Jane Bambauer discuss the various rules the Court applies in obscenity cases and the forthcoming Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton decision.  Fun fact: Associate Justice Potter Stewart, who wrote the “I know it when I see it” line in a 1964 obscenity opinion, later concluded that any such obscenity test would be unconstitutionally vague. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Send us a textIn this episode of Faithful Politics, Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram are joined by two legal experts, Professor Corinna Lain from the University of Richmond School of Law and Professor Danielle Wingfield, to discuss the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity. The conversation explores how the 2024 SCOTUS decision in Trump v. United States builds on earlier cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald and Clinton v. Jones, granting former presidents greater immunity from prosecution, even for potentially criminal acts performed in office. The professors delve into the broader implications of the ruling, the balance of powers between the executive branch and other government bodies, and the unsettling possibilities for future presidents to push the boundaries of their authority without legal consequence. They also touch on the potential long-term effects on public trust and accountability in American democracy.Tune in to learn more about this critical case, how it shifts the boundaries of presidential power, and why it's crucial to pay attention as the future of democracy hangs in the balance.Guests Bio:Danielle Wingfield: Professor Wingfield joined Richmond Law from Gonzaga University School of Law where she served as a fellow and visiting assistant professor. Her primary areas of teaching and scholarship include legal history, constitutional law, family law, race and the law, family law, and education law and policy. She earned her Ph.D. in education from the University of Virginia, her J.D. from the University of Richmond, and her B.A. in sociology and philosophy from the College of William & Mary. Professor Wingfield served as Of Counsel for The Child Advocate Law Firm, PLLC in Charlottesville, Virginia prior to returning to academia.Corinna Lain: Professor Corinna Lain is the S. D. Roberts & Sandra Moore Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law. Professor Lain's scholarship focuses on two areas—Supreme Court decision-making and the death penalty—and she has published numerous articles and essays about lethal injection over the last decade. Her work has appeared in the nation's top law journals, including the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is a frequent presenter at both national and international conferences, and is co-author (with Ron Bacigal) of the Virginia Practice Series on criminal law, a four-volume treatise for the bench and practicing "The Faith Roundtable" is a captivating spinoff from the Faithful Politics podcast, dedicated to exploring the crucial issues facing the church in America today. Hosted by Josh Burtram, this podcast brings together faith leaders, theologians, and scholars for deep, respectful discussions on topics at the heart of American Christianity. From the intersection of faith and public life to urgent matters such as social justice and community engagement, each episode offers insightful conversations Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics Subscribe to our Substack: https://faithfulpolitics.substack.com/

We interview Leo Strine on the purpose of the corporation, differentiating between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory. We discuss ESG and the power of stockholders and workers. Leo Strine applies his perspective on corporate purpose to corporate acquisitions and lays out his hopes for the future of corporations. Some critical articles to learn more about the shareholder primacy vs stakeholder theory debate:Origins of the argument: - Merrick Dodd, For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, 45 HARV. L. REV. 1145 (1932) - Adolph A. Berle, Jr., For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note, 45 HARV.. L. REV. 1365, 1372 (1932)Shareholder primacy ownership argument: - Milton Friedman, A Friedman doctrine– The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13 1970.Critique on shareholder primacy: - Lynn A. Stout, Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy, 75 S. CAL. L. REV. 1189 (2002).Example of Application: - Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance. 106 Corn. L. Rev. 91 (2020).Example of Court Case Application: - Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 177 (Del. 1986)A bit about Leo Strine:Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Prior to joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.  Before becoming the Chief Justice, he served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998.In his judicial positions, Mr. Strine wrote hundreds of opinions in the areas of corporate law, contract law, trusts and estates, criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law.  Notably, he authored the lead decision in the Delaware Supreme Court case holding that Delaware's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the key findings necessary to impose a death sentence to be made by a unanimous jury.For a generation, Mr. Strine taught various corporate law courses at the Harvard and University of Pennsylvania law schools, and now serves as the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Strine served as the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Corporate Laws. He also was the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Mergers & Acquisitions from 2014 to 2019. He is a member of the American Law Institute.Mr. Strine speaks and writes frequently on the subjects of corporate and public law, and particularly the impact of business on society, and his articles have been published in The University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, among others.  On several occasions, his articles were selected as among the Best Corporate and Securities Articles of the year, based on the choices of law professors.Before becoming a judge in 1998,  Mr. Strine served as Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Thomas R. Carper, and had also worked as a corporate litigator at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom from 1990 to 1992.  He was law clerk to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Chief Judge John F. Gerry of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Mr. Strine graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law Sc

Professor Greer Donley is a national expert on abortion and the law. Donley has published widely and been quoted extensively in the media, especially on topics related to medication abortion, interjurisdictional abortion conflicts, and the impact of abortion bans on other aspects of reproductive healthcare. Donley's scholarly works have been published in the Stanford Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, and Minnesota Law Review. Her popular writing often appears in the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Washington Post, and Slate. Her paper, The New Abortion Battleground, co-authored with David S. Cohen and Rachel Rebouché, was downloaded over 20,000 times, covered widely in the media, and cited by the Supreme Court's dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, Professor Donley has regularly applied her expertise to advocacy work. Professor Donley helped design, draft, and pass the first abortion shield law in Connecticut, which has now been replicated in many states and cities. She also helped draft an FDA Law Scholars amicus brief in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA case and was one of two primary drafters of a citizen petition to the FDA to add miscarriage management to the mifepristone label. Donley's scholarship, advocacy, and teaching have been recognized through a variety of awards, including a Chancellor's Distinguished Research Award (junior category), Marion Young Award for Political Engagement, Robert T. Harper Excellence in Teaching Award, Haub Law Emerging Scholar Award in Women, Gender & Law, and SLU & ASLME Health Law Scholar Award. In 2022, she was the 11th most downloaded law professor on SSRN.

Incitement, solicitation, fighting words, threats, bad tendencies, and more, with special attention to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982), the Court's little-publicized precedent on the subject. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.  

Jace Lington chats with Jenn Mascott about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump. They discuss the Appointments Clause and the broader context of the debate surrounding the special counsel investigation of the former president.Notes:Judge Aileen Cannon's decision in US v. TrumpJustice Thomas's concurring opinion in Trump v. USJenn Mascott's Stanford Law Review article on the Appointments Clause

In Moody v. Netchoice, the Supreme Court considered the Florida and Texas laws that tried to limit social media platforms' power to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  In Murthy v. Missouri, the Supreme Court considered whether the federal government impermissibly pressured social media platforms to moderate (or is it censor?) user posts.  What did the Court tell us?  Jane and Eugene try to figure it out. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Silicon Valley) sits down with First Amendment scholars Jane Bambauer and Eugene Volokh to explore Internet policy and free speech. Topics include the TikTok ban, social media child addiction claims, competition, and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS: Congressman Ro Khanna represents California's 17th Congressional District, located in the heart of Silicon Valley, and is serving his fourth term. Rep. Khanna serves on the House Armed Services Committee as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems (CITI), as co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on India and Indian Americans, a member of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, and on the Oversight and Accountability Committee, where he previously chaired the Environmental Subcommittee. As a leading progressive in the House, Rep, Khanna is working to restore American manufacturing and technology leadership, improve the lives of working people, and advance U.S. leadership on climate, human rights, and diplomacy around the world. Eugene Volokh is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he had been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (8th ed., 2023) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. ABOUT THE SERIES: Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Eugene Volokh is the co-founder of The Volokh Conspiracy and one of the country's foremost experts on the 1st Amendment and the legal issues surrounding free speech. Jane Bambauer is a distinguished professor of law and journalism at the University of Florida. On Free Speech Unmuted, Volokh and Bambauer unpack and analyze the current issues and controversies concerning the First Amendment, censorship, the press, social media, and the proverbial town square. They explain in plain English the often confusing legalese around these issues and explain how the courts and government agencies interpret the Constitution and new laws being written, passed, and decided will affect Americans' everyday lives.

Can Congress require China-based ByteDance to divest itself of TikTok as a condition for TikTok continuing to be easily accessible in the US? Alan Rozenshtein, Jane Bambauer, and Eugene Volokh discuss whether the law is consistent with the First Amendment – and with the much more rarely talked about Bill of Attainder Clause. To view the full transcript of this episode, read below: Free Speech Unmuted Eugene Volokh: Hello, welcome to Free Speech Unmuted from the Hoover Institution. I'm your co host Eugene Volokh, now basically emeritus from UCLA Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. Jane Bambauer: I'm Jane Bamberger, the Breckner Eminent Scholar and Professor of Law at University of Florida. And today we have with us Alan Rosenstein. So Alan, tell us, tell us about yourself and correct my pronunciation of your name if I just butchered it. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. it's Rosenstein, but I, don't, I don't, wait, Eugene Volokh: wait, a minute. You, spell it Alan Rozenshtein: Rosenstein. I can't, I, I cannot, I am not responsible for my parents immigration choices. Eugene Volokh: Exactly. So Alan and I. are both of Russian Jewish extraction. I was actually born in Kiev and it came here when I was, seven. Alan's parents are from, from Russia. I don't know the former Soviet union, but he was born very [00:01:00] shortly after they came. So there is always this question of how you, how you transliterate the relic names into something that Americans can pronounce. And I, I'm not sure either of our parents did a great job with that. mu much as we love them on this particular point, they may have aired. Alan Rozenshtein: it's funny because both of our names have these silent Hs and I like to joke that there's a STL somewhere that's missing an H. There you go. Found its way into my name. It's s. Eugene Volokh: But I'm sorry to have interrupted, Alan, tell us about yourself. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. I'm an associate professor of law at the University of Minnesota where I've taught now for seven years. And I am also a senior editor at Lawfare where I do a lot of my writing on the sorts of topics that we're going to talk about today. and before that, I was a, attorney at the Department of Justice in the law and policy section of the National Security Division. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, so we're here today to talk about the tick tock ban or so called tick tock [00:02:00] ban it will see what, whether it actually, you know what its future actually has in store. But can you tell us a little bit about the law that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden and then. We'll figure out what the free speech issues are. Alan Rozenshtein: Sure. So the law and, this is actually one of these, cases where Congress did not use a backer name for some reason, it's the protect Americans from foreign adversary controlled applications act. So it's perfect. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Which is, Alan Rozenshtein: which is not great. which is not great. So we're just going to tell, I'm going to call it the tick talk law. so this was a law that was introduced in the house as part of the, bipartisan select committee on China, sailed through the house, a few months ago, surprising a lot of people how quickly it went through. It seemed to stall in the Senate for a while, but then for a number of reasons, including some changes made to the [00:03:00] law and then the broader, foreign aid package that went through. To assistance to Ukraine, Israel in particular, this was, signed or enacted by Congress and signed the law by the president. I think late last month, and the law, is sometimes called a, it's called by its supporters as a divestment law, it's called by its opponents as a ban law. Basically what it does is it requires bite dance. The Chinese company that owns approximately 20 percent of TikTok to, divest itself of TikTok. And if it doesn't do so within a little less than a year. TikTok is banned now. What band means is a little complicated. really what it is that, the law actually applies to, app stores and in particular, internet providers. They're not allowed to, Host tiktok services, so it doesn't actually make for consumers using tiktok illegal or anything. But given that the vast, majority of people just want to use a, [00:04:00] social media platform without too much, fuss, once the app stores stop carrying updated versions of tiktok. And once it gets, hard to use tiktok through the website, through your internet service provider, the assumption is that tiktok will be for the vast majority of people effectively banned. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. so you've written on Lawfare about the First Amendment implications and I understand you're going to have another post coming out soon. We'll link to both of those. But what do you make of this? how would you apply First Amendment jurisprudence to this particular law? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, no, it's an interesting question. And to be honest, I, it's funny. I, I, have never thought of myself as a first amendment scholar, though, in the last year or two, just given how much time I spend thinking about all things internet related, I feel like I've become one. But really, I think of you two as far more expert in this than I am. So I have my own ideas, but I'm actually very curious This is what you two with kind of a much longer history of thinking about the First Amendment think, so [00:05:00] I think of myself as in the minority of scholars, not a tiny minority, but I think a minority of scholars who think that although the First Amendment arguments that TikTok and TikTok users will be making, against this law, although the arguments are strong, that ultimately the government actually has a pretty good Case and I think more likely than not that the first amendment that the government will ultimately prevail You know at the end of the day and here I'll cheat a little bit in answering your question Jane because When one traditionally starts a first minute analysis the most important thing to do once one has decided that The first time it actually applies so that this is First Amendment protected activity. And I think here there's general agreement that the first time it definitely is implicated is one has to figure out what the appropriate quote unquote tier of scrutiny is. is this a prior restraint, which is the highest level of review? Is it [00:06:00] a viewpoint based? Law. Is it a content based law? Is it a content neutral law? In which case, it's not strict scrutiny, but intermediate scrutiny. And then all these gradations in between, and again, it's something that you two who are real first known scholars know one can spend infinite brain cycles thinking about this. And I think one thing that's interesting about this law is that I think they're actually plausible arguments for all of those positions. I think you can argue that it's a prior restraint, that it's viewpoint based, that it's content based, that it's content neutral. I think part of that is because this is a, I think a pretty novel fact pattern, at least in First Amendment jurisprudence. I think it's also the fact that the tiers of scrutiny analysis has never been, I think, particularly clear. And when I said I'm gonna cheat in your answer a little bit, what I meant is that I think at the end of the day it doesn't matter all that much. Which is to say, at the end of the day, the vast majority of First Amendment cases come down to some sort of balancing of the various interests at stake. And this is particularly true at the Supreme [00:07:00] Court, where, you really, I'll be a little bit of a legal realist here. It's really all about can you count to five justices that will agree that your side's values are more important than the other side's values. and that although the tiers of scrutiny do real work in that they, function as kind of presumptions, if the court concludes that such and such is a prior restraint, then presumptively the government's going to have a big problem, though sometimes prior restraints are fine. Similarly, if the court concludes that this is merely a neutral time, place, and manner restriction, presumptively the government's probably going to be okay, though those are also struck down all the time. At the end of the day, a lot relies again, especially in really high profile, sui generous cases like this on the specific facts. in my writing on this, I have tried not to, and again, I'm happy to get pushback, from, you too. I have tried not to spend too many cycles worrying about exactly what level of scrutiny should apply here. And instead, just [00:08:00] try to outline what are the values on each side? What are the values The First Amendment interests of TikTok, and I think more importantly, the 150 million American users of TikTok on the one hand. Versus on the other hand, what are the government's interests here in potentially banning TikTok, or at least really risking a ban of TikTok? and there are two in particular. One is a data privacy concern, because in the course of personalizing the TikTok algorithm for users, TikTok collects an enormous amount of information on what it is that you are watching and clicking and liking and disliking. and TikTok and therefore ByteDance and therefore the Chinese Communist Party could potentially use that information to America's detriment. So that's the data privacy concern. And the other concern is a foreign manipulation concern. That, because TikTok is You know, entirely run by the algorithm is totally inscrutable. if [00:09:00] a foreign entity can influence that algorithm, they can influence the information ecosystem of 150 million Americans and not just 150 million Americans, but because of TikTok, because TikTok is so popular among young people. And for those young people, TikTok is not just a source of fun cat videos, but it's actually the main source of news that they get. one can imagine, just generally, or especially in a conflict, let's say over Taiwan, that TikTok could suddenly become a, profound, Vector of foreign influence and foreign manipulation. And so I think ultimately comes down to balancing those two. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. Okay. So before we go into the values and the sort of government interest, I do want to pause and Talk through the coverage or maybe levels of scrutiny issue because I'm actually not sure and I really regret to say this because as a policy matter. I have some major issues with the tick tock [00:10:00] band, but I'm not sure that actually the First Amendment would even apply. I'm curious to hear Eugene's thoughts as well. But here's, my thinking. I guess there are two reasons to doubt that we have to do a First Amendment analysis. One is that maybe you could conceive of this as really a trade restriction, that has obvious, free, speech, results, and, maybe even speech related, content based related, even viewpoint based related maybe motivations, but that ultimately still it's a Restriction on managing, trade and so the way, much, much the way that we, don't allow certain other types of, products or services, to, pass through the borders. Another reason though that I have some skepticism is because the Supreme Court in cases that are somewhat old, but, they've suggested that [00:11:00] even when the government's goal basically is to restrict information that comes from outside the borders in. They have wide latitude and, these cases don't seem to really apply a constitutional analysis. So the two cases I have in mind, first, the earliest was Zemel versus Rusk, which is a little different because this is the case that involves, a set of plaintiffs who wanted to travel to, to, Cuba in the sixties. And they alleged, and no one disagreed, that they wanted to go there in order to gather information and an understanding of what's happening in Cuba. And, the Supreme Court went out of its way, not only to say that the government has full authority to decide who can leave the country, but, but also the Supreme Court said that the right to speak and publish does not carry with it unrestrained right to gather information. A lot has happened since that case. And I think the Supreme Court has over time [00:12:00] recognized the right to gather information. but. the board, if you combine that logic with the logic of the whole state control of the borders. you can see where I'm going here. And then the second case, was, Kleindienst versus Mandel. Yeah. yeah. So this one I think is even closer analogy. that one, I know. Yeah. Yeah. And so this one involved, this is a little later in the seventies. It's still a long, long ago though. And it involved, an invitation offered by Stanford University to a Belgian revolutionary Marxist as he himself portrayed. Yeah. Yeah. his own work, who, applied for a visa to come to campus and give a speech and the, customs office said no. And although there were a couple of dissenting, justices, the Supreme Court decided there is, basically that the government has full control over, over these decisions, irrespective of the reasons, the [00:13:00] speech related reasons that they may be made. Eugene, do you, what, do you make of. Just this application question, the coverage question. Eugene Volokh: so I'd love to hear what Alan has to say about those cases. But I'd also add a third one, which is Lamont v. Postmaster General, which specifically involved the travel not of people, but of information. And that was actually, it was 1965, the first Federal statute ever struck down by the Supreme Court on First Amendment grounds. Of course, the Supreme Court has the power to strike down Lamont. It's true. It has the power to strike down federal statutes and often exercises it. In fact, The whole point of the First Amendment originally was to constrain Congress, that's it starts with Congress shall make no law, but it took a long time before the court actually said this federal statute, not a state statute, not a federal executive action, but this federal statute is unconstitutional, happened in 1965. The statute, [00:14:00] basically required Americans who wanted to receive foreign communist propaganda to go to the post office. maybe not the post office, but in any case, go to the government and say, I am willing to receive it by the mail. And it made it illegal to send and deliver it to them, unless they have actually specifically, specifically requested. and the Supreme Court did not decide the question whether foreign. Foreigners, and especially foreign governments, have any First Amendment rights. It didn't focus on the rights of the senders, but it did talk about the rights of the recipients and, concluded that this law was unconstitutional because it interfered with the rights of Americans to receive this information. And so it did not view, federal governments had undoubted power to control what comes into the country, [00:15:00] as A total as being unlimited or put, more positively concluded that even Congress's broad power to, control what goes into the country is limited by the first two. So those are the three cases that strike me as most, most relevant. Although Alan, I totally agree with you that in many ways, this is sui generis and part of the problem is the Supreme Court has never really confronted a question quite like this one. even Lamont, which I do think is. Some respects close. This is a mailings of foreign propaganda to Americans. How many Americans would likely, even if they didn't have to put their name down on a list, would have been particularly interested in reading that? Very few. Tick tock very many. so, it's an interesting, I'm not saying any of these cases are strictly binding here, but I'd love to hear what you think about how these cases play out. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. so a lot there. So let me say a couple of things. So first, and [00:16:00] this is not dispositive, but it's something all the, all of the courts to have all of the courts who have heard cases like the one that is about to be heard in the DC circuit, because this is not the first attempt to ban tick tock. There was, I think Montana. some Midwestern state. I think it was Montana tried to remove Wyoming, tried to ban it. And then, of course, in the Trump administration, Trump through executive order, tried to ban it in litigation there. everyone seemed to concede. And certainly the courts assumed that there was a first amendment issue here again. That doesn't mean that there necessarily is. But I think that's one data point. The second point I would say is, just to get back to Lamont, because I think Lamont is a very important issue. Case I reread it this morning because I needed to for this law for peace that I'm writing and what you described Eugene as the holding of Lamont, which is that Americans have a right to receive foreign propaganda, which is how Lamont is generally understood. I'm actually not sure. That's what Lamont says. That's what Justice Brennan's concurrent says in Lamont. But Justice Douglas is very short and in [00:17:00] true Justice Douglas fashion, extremely under argued and under theorized opinion really actually focuses on, the, the chilling effect of having to go to the government and say, Yes, I would like to receive the peaking review. And that was coincidentally, the, propaganda at issue. So it's another Chinese propaganda case. but we should get back to Lamont. I think Lamont is an interesting case. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that, and that, yeah, that, that makes sense. And Brennan is consistent because he also dissented in that client and in the, case involving the Belgian. Yeah. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think, Kleindienst is very interesting, and again, it's, hard to know what exactly to make of that, what I, whatever Kleindienst stands for, the reason I don't think that it would really apply here is, it'd be one thing if the government From a blank slate said, or, let me give you a more specific example. It's one thing if a [00:18:00] Chinese company wanted to buy a us platform and the government, and here would be SIFI as the committee on foreign investment in the United States said, no, you can't do this. And in fact, CFIUS has done this, when a Chinese company tried to buy Grindr, which is a dating service, very popular with gay and lesbian Americans. CFIUS said, no, you can't do this because we don't want the Chinese government to have access to the HIV status of Americans. Cause that's something that Grindr allowed people to put in. that I think is different than you have an existing platform where 150 million users are every day doing things that have profound first amendment implications. And we are now going to ban this platform. I think that's quite different then. There's something outside the United States. And then the question is, can it come into the United States? Something you already have in the United States. Now, to, to your point, Jane, I think the fact that the government generally has broad national security, foreign relations, economic trade, however you want to think of it, powers, is a really important part of the First [00:19:00] Amendment analysis. But I think that, the kind of brute fact that you have 150 million Americans using TikTok every day is going to make it very difficult, I think, for any court, even if they ultimately uphold the law, which I think they will, to say there's no First Amendment issue here. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I hope you're right, but it is one of those things that where, there's probably all sorts of ways in which our national security or customs and border enforcement, keep us from knowing what we'd actually like to know and we're just And so the being, joining you on the realist side a little bit I, you're probably right but if we knew more about what we're missing from certain policies, maybe that same logic should apply to cases that the Supreme Court, The thought where you're, unrelated to the first moment. So Eugene Volokh: I do want to, I do want to also stand by a little bit my characterization of a Lamonti Postmaster General. I think even in Justice, Douglas's [00:20:00] majority opinion for the court, he talks about how the requirement that the addressee must request in writing that it be delivered Is, quote, an unconstitutional abridgment of the addressee's First Amendment rights. Close quote. Sounds like in context, what he's saying is That the addressee has a First Amendment right to receive information and, that, by saying in order to get the information, you've got to do something that will put you on a list of people who are interested in foreign communists, but again, that which is a list most people might not have wanted to be on. the, the concern there is that, it burdens your ability to receive that information. It imposes a barrier to your First Amendment rights as a listener. But in any case, whether it's Justice Douglas or Justice Brennan's quite influential concurrence that you're [00:21:00] quite right, has gotten a lot of traction since then. I do think in many ways, Structurally it is quite similar because here the concern is also that TikTok users have an interest in using this app and receiving the information on it, although many of them are also TikTok content creators, so they have an interest in being able to use it to distribute their speech. So I'm totally with you that there's a Pretty substantial burden on people's ability to speak and to listen for sure. But also again just returning to your sui generis point You might say that what was true of this relatively minor form a potential form of foreign influence in the form of mailings of the peking review or similar publications from overseas may not be really relevant to a situation where we've got something that's being used by so many, Americans and so many young Americans. Alan Rozenshtein: [00:22:00] Yeah. And I, think it's part, partially what you just said, right? It's a scale issue, but I think it's partially also a transparency issue. So I think one thing that's important about this, ban is that it does not prevent Chinese propaganda. I can go today and I link from this from lawfare. So I the peaking review is interesting. It is, China's only English language state on newspaper. and it you can click on. It's called the Beijing review today. It still operates. it says exactly what you would think it would say. and you can access it and you can access it today. You can access it after the law goes into effect. Similarly, if you want to go and, you want to hear what, The China Ministry of Foreign Affairs wants to say you can go and hop on Twitter and read their Twitter account and you'll be able to do after this bill goes into effect as well. So it's not a ban on Chinese propaganda per se, or I think even at all. It's a ban on Chinese control over an information environment. Now why is that different? [00:23:00] if you dig into the justifications, so let's, say that we interpret Lamont Through the Brennan concurrence, right? and, we just say, okay, Lamont stands for some general proposition that Americans have a right to foreign propaganda. Why? I think the, best argument is there's like a marketplace of ideas. argument that foreign propaganda is information like anything else and it should be part of the flow and One person's propaganda is another person's truth And even if it's bad it helps sharpen our understanding all the standard marketplace of ideas arguments that i'm totally happy with but one difference I think between foreign propaganda and foreign control over a platform is foreign propaganda is usually at least Pretty clearly foreign propaganda when you're reading, or at least it's foreign when you're reading the Beijing review, you're reading the Beijing review. You know what you're reading. and I think that helps contextualize what you're reading. You can agree with it, disagree with it when you're on tick tock. The whole point is that this algorithm is totally unscrutable. You have [00:24:00] no idea why you are seeing what you are seeing and the potential for subconscious manipulation, that I don't think, furthers the marketplace of ideas. in the same way that being able to read the Peking Review does. I think that's another really big difference. Now, we could spend all day talking about it, but maybe even, subconscious propaganda still has information and stuff like that. But I think at the very least from a doctrinal matter, it's pretty clear that this distinguishes Lamont and, I emphasize this because I've heard a lot of critics of this law cite Lamont as if it straightforwardly disposes of this case because Lamont stands for some super broad proposition about foreign propaganda. And, what I would say is I don't think the case does. And I also don't think that. The historical context does either. Matt Iglesias, the, well known blogger, had a nice piece a couple months ago, why he is, was for the ban. And he's not a lawyer, so his is more of a policy analysis, but he made a very nice analogy. And he said, look, imagine during the height of the Cold [00:25:00] War, the Soviet Union wanted to go and buy CBS. Would we have allowed that? And the answer is no, we would not have allowed that. And it is, I think, inconceivable that the Supreme Court would have had problems with that. it, it strikes me as very unlikely. Again, this is not a legal point. This is a historical sociological point that even the court that I think unanimously, struck down that law in Lamont in 1965 would have, three years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, been okay with the Soviet Union buying CBS. Because I think there is really a distinction and it's not just one of degree. it's one of kind. Eugene Volokh: so first of all, I'm sorry, you're quite right that, the, court, the court, was unanimous in the case. I was mistaken, talking about dissent. I'm sorry. I should have said that the government's position, in Lamont postmaster general, but the second thing I wanted to say, is that, you, raise this question of buying, broadcasters and indeed, [00:26:00] there are to this day. Limits, substantial limits on foreign ownership of, of, broadcasters, presumptive limits. they could be, as I understand it, waived by the FCC, but there are such limits. what do you think of that as a precedent, do you think? the Supreme Court, to my knowledge, has never really squarely confronted them. But the broad assumption is that they are, they're valid. Is it something that's just a broadcasting only rule? Because there are a lot of. Supreme Court cases that say, broadcasting is special, or is it something that you think stands for a broader proposition and the other thing? actually, I have a follow up question for you, but I wanted to see what you thought about that. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's both. So, I do think the broadcast precedents are really important, in terms of, this long history of, foreign ownership rules. And, here I, I will. Suggest, the folks are interested. Ganesh Sitaraman, [00:27:00] who's a law professor at Vanderbilt, wrote a wonderful article in the Stanford Law Review last year, two years ago, I think called Foreign Ownership of Platforms. We can put it in the show notes. That really goes through this history, not just communications platforms, but generally of foreign ownership, restrictions. I think that precedent is, important. I think you're also right, Eugene, to be fair, that, A response could be, yeah, but those were in the broadcast context, and the court has often distinguished restrictions that are okay under the First Amendment for broadcast, or what are something called limited spectrum situations, and that would not be in the context of an unlimited spectrum. But I have a response to that, which is that, it is true that the internet is not limited in the way that broadcast is, right? If I want to broadcast on a radio frequency, no one else can broadcast on that radio frequency, and therefore you need to have government intervention. Otherwise, none of it works. That's not true for the internet. But the internet is limited in a different way, and that is with attention. [00:28:00] it used to be that the bottleneck for communications was the internet. Broadcast or spectrum now it's the attention of the audience and because you still have a bottleneck, right? You can still get monopolistic effects where it used to be that there were a few small a few very large Broadcasters and they carved the broadcast Spectrum that was the bottleneck now. There are a few large platforms. They're not carving up spectrum. They're carving up attention and I think that actually, if you think deeply about, what justified intervention in the broadcast industry, it was general scarcity, but it doesn't just be scarcity Of, of, spectrum. It can be whatever scarcity of the bottleneck there is. And so Jane Bambauer: I think I just go ahead, finish it. Yeah, it will. Alan Rozenshtein: So and, and and I think this is, this is, a different project and maybe this is a project I should write. [00:29:00] And then you Jane can tell me why, I'm wrong. I actually think that, where you have, limited attention, that is just as good of a reason as limited broadcast for the government to, regulate, if it regulates well. Now, ISIL has to regulate well. Jane Bambauer: Yeah, that's not my objection, though. I think the problem is the scarcity that the spectrum scarcity has to do with the means of production. The attention scarcity is more like saying there are only there's at any given point a set number of dollars in the world and consumers don't have unlimited dollars to spend on different types of content. It doesn't actually prevent a competitor from coming in and creating content or curating content, which I think. I think the limited set of platforms that are doing well, because they're actually in fierce competition with each other in a curation market, not in, a traditional content market. But, [00:30:00] nevertheless, there are lots of ways to get copious amounts of information. The trouble is figuring out how to pitch the right information to the right person so that it's worth their time. And there, I just don't see I don't see a monopoly style problem there. And I guess that leads me to the skepticism about, about the, policy behind the tick tock ban that, I, get that there's a lot of really bad content on tick tock and that the Chinese government may have a motivation that's different from the capitalistic one, and that is, that, that, does. seek to cause, disarray and, and, polarization among Americans. But I don't see a big difference between the effects of TikTok and the effects of every other social media company because, first of all, I think there's reason to think that even if you have completely malignant intent. There's [00:31:00] only so much that you can do to manipulate a person into thinking or pursuing some information that they don't already want to pursue. and then also that even through just the normal capitalistic, motivations, most of these platforms are incentivized to find information and curate information. that leads to polarization, that leads to anger and to resentment and to, all, of the things that the Chinese government may benefit from, but doesn't really cause in a, fundamental sense. Alan Rozenshtein: So I, I, so there are a couple, of points there, right? So, one, And let's just say generally, the field of, I don't even know what you'd call it, social media communication psychology, is still quite young. it is advancing very quickly or changing very quickly because The actual infrastructure is changing very [00:32:00] quickly. and if you're looking for a clear social science answer, like you can find, there are lots of papers that will say all sorts of things, right? So policymakers and judges are definitely going to be, legislating and deciding under real uncertainty, which raises interesting meta questions about, okay, then, should we err on this side or that side? then there's a more specific question about, what do we know about specifically China and specifically ByteDance and specifically TikTok? And we can get into the evidence that we have and how speculative or not speculative it is. and then third, we can get into this question of what is the specific threat here? Because I agree with you if the concern is it's in China's interest to addict all our kids to stupid cat videos, or it's in China's interest to feed, TikTok users inflammatory polarizing content because, that's what gets the most clicks. Then I agree with you that would not be a great argument because it's not clear that Twitter or Instagram or Meta operate any differently than, [00:33:00] than, than that, right? I think the unique danger is that, The Chinese government has shown, a couple of things. One, a willingness to, in a very heavy handed way, try to alter how it is perceived around the world with respect to any number of issues. the Hong Kong democracy protests, the issues with the Uyghurs, certainly relations with Taiwan. and in addition, And in a way that just goes beyond your general polarization or feeding people, content that gets them angry. and in addition that, the Chinese government, is also willing to use its, private companies, in a way that very much goes against those private companies own market and capitalist interests. If the Chinese government perceived that it is in their interest, right? And I, think the government's real concern is. In a [00:34:00] shooting war with Taiwan, right? what will the Chinese government, force TikTok to show to 150 million users, right? Now you may say, at the end of the day, people make up their own minds and so forth, right? And, it's a risk. But the question is, is are the courts going to require? And here we have to we have to separate the legal question from the policy questions, because courts have a very specific role. and although we all understand that they make policy, they don't really want to be in a position of second guessing the national security and foreign policy judgments of the political branches. do courts want to tell the government? No, Go get into a war with China. China over Taiwan. Let's see what's on TikTok. And if TikTok spends six months feeding the young people of America, pro China content and gets them all to protest and stuff like that, then we can talk again. That's a bit of a caricature of the view. But I think that's the thing that keeps the government [00:35:00] up at night. and speaking only for myself, right? That's good enough for me. this is a your mileage may vary situation. I totally accept that. Jane Bambauer: Yeah. I see the same logic in the communist era. but Eugene, what do you think? Eugene Volokh: so I want to ask a couple of follow up questions or maybe three questions. one first amendment question and two turns out they're more than first amendment issues in the case. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. Yeah. Eugene Volokh: So the first is we haven't focused on the fact that this law doesn't ban TikTok as such, but requires. It essentially to be divested from Chinese influenced ownership. So I'm inclined to think that doesn't eliminate the First Amendment issue. But at the same time, it sounds like maybe it Would affect it? maybe not. I'd love to hear your thinking. And then I wanted to follow up, with a couple of more questions. One about the [00:36:00] bill of attainder question, and the other about this weird procedural posture of the case. But first, tell me what you think about this, how this, divestiture option affects the first amendment analysis. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah. again, I take a middle position between some of the defenders of the bill who just say this is just divestiture and some of the critics who say this is an outright ban. It's not. It's you have to divest or you get a ban. I do think, I don't think that eliminates the First Amendment issue because there's a real risk of a ban that has to be taken into account. and the government can't just say, it's China's fault if it's banned and therefore we don't have to defend this law in First Amendment grounds. That's not how this works. On the same, on the other hand, I do think that the divestiture option helps in, two ways. One is that a lot of First Amendment analysis is about overbreath, right? a lot of constitutional analysis is about, did the government's action go further than necessary? And by definition, a law that allows for divestment instead of a ban. is more narrowly tailored, again by [00:37:00] definition, than a law that just does a ban. So it's almost like a good faith showing on the part of the government that we're actually trying to solve a problem here. We're really trying to solve, have different options here. The second reason, and this is maybe a little cute, but I do think it's plays importantly, at least politically, maybe also legally. If the investment fails, it's probably be going to be because China refuses to allow ByteDance to sell the algorithm to TikTok. And in fact, in the complaint that TikTok filed with the D. C. Circuit, they have essentially said that. They said divestment is not an option because China will not allow it. But if China won't allow it, shows a little bit, exactly what the government is worried about. That China cares a lot about this, and it's going to use its weight to, It's going to use its weight around here, which is exactly the point. I want to be fair. Anupam Chander, who's a sparring partner of mine on this and is great. and is at Georgetown, has argued that actually there are plenty of good reasons for countries not to want to allow the [00:38:00] export of sensitive technologies that have nothing to do with manipulation. and that's a fair point, but I think it it's almost like performatively shows. It's very clever. It shows to the courts in part, the very problem that the government is citing, which is China's influence and ability to throw its weight around. so that's the divestment thing. Should we talk about bill of attainder? Eugene Volokh: before we get to bill of attainder, I wanted to ask you about the, procedural issues. So a lot of what we're talking about here turns on facts. just how much influence does the Chinese government have? over bike debts. just, just how much of a burden will this impose on American creators and others? just how much, just what evidence is there of real national security threat? and in a typical situation, what would happen there would be is that there would be a challenge brought in federal district court, which is a trial court, the [00:39:00] judge might have a hearing where the judge would consider both written submissions, written, declarations of experts and others and, and other witnesses, and, at the same time, would also potentially have, have an oral hearing. and then it would go up on appeal where the appellate courts and perhaps eventually the Supreme Court would consider, how the legal rules apply to that. here, Congress provided that the challenge would be brought in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is an appellate court, which does not regularly, and I'm not sure, If it ever, maybe it does have some mechanisms for this, but at least does not regularly hear evidence. The job of an appellate court is not to hear evidence. It's to review an evidentiary record built either by the, trial courts or by, administrative agencies. So tell us how any of these factual questions are going to be resolved, [00:40:00] in, a case like this. Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I will say this is a among the nerderati. This is a real topic of excitement. and we'll have to see. So so a couple of points. so first is, unfortunately, the bill does not have legislative findings attached to it, which is usually actually really important part of these kinds of bills. And it's surprising that it doesn't given that there's been reporting that Congress collaborated very closely with DOJ to really bulletproof this bill. It's not clear why they didn't On the other hand, the co sponsors of the bill, Representatives Gallagher and Krishnamurti, introduced a resolution, which is basically a very long list of legislative findings, and a lot of that resolution ended up in the House Committee Report. that accompanied the bill, and that has a lot of information about classified briefings that Congress received about the threat. Why alternatives that tick tock offered were not sufficient. I think that, though that resolution, this committee reports will play a really important role, [00:41:00] and may go some way to establishing the factual and evidentiary record. But Eugene, you're totally right. It doesn't go all the way, and it's certainly much less than what happened in district court. So what's going to happen? Appellate, you're right, appellate courts, they're appellate courts. They don't usually hear trials or take evidence, but they can, and not just the D. C. Circuit, but the Supreme Court can. So the Constitution provides original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court and all sorts of things. And I, there is at least one time that I know of that the Supreme Court tried to hold a trial and it went extremely poorly. I, have to, I, Once I read a very funny Law Review article about this. I got to dig it out. It's, it was a real comedy of errors, and so from then on, they decided, that what they would do is, in case of original jurisdiction, where like states sue each other, which happens from time to time, they would get a, I think it's called special master, basically an outside lawyer who would go do the fact finding for them. I'm sure the DC circuit could do the same thing. I haven't read the, I'm not a litigator. I haven't read the federal rules of civil procedure in a long time, repellent procedure. [00:42:00] I'm sure there's some mechanism for that. I think what's more interesting is the role of potentially classified information, because a lot of this is classified. the appellate courts can hear classified information. the DC circuit certainly can. It did so routinely in the 2010s during, the many Guantanamo habeas cases, that it heard. and actually just last year, the ninth circuit in another national security case, Twitter versus Garland, had to hear a lot of national classified information to decide whether or not Twitter's challenge against certain gag orders was constitutional and literally in the opinion, the Ninth Circuit says we are not at liberty to discuss the classified information that we have reviewed, but we reviewed it as part of our analysis and trust us. It's fine. I made up that last part. so it may very well be, that there is some classified information that is submitted to the court in camera. Maybe there's a protective order. I have no idea how it's going to work, but it may very well be that the D, the D. C. Circuit says, we look at the classified information, trust us.[00:43:00] Eugene Volokh: Got it. so that's very helpful to know. So let's just close by, stealing something from, we have a sister podcast, the Bill of attainder, unmuted podcast, we probably should have had this other, no, there is no real, for the real Alan Rozenshtein: Nerderati, Eugene Volokh: because it's a pretty rare issue to arise, but there is this issue of whether this law violates the bill of attainder clause and to quote the Supreme Court in actually a case involving President Nixon, is that, Bill of Attainder is a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial tribe. The classic example historically was Parliament backed law. Back in jolly old England would say we think this person is, is a traitor often or has done something [00:44:00] very bad. but maybe he's allied with the king, so we can't trust that he will be normally prosecuted. We're just going to say he is a traitor and needs to be beheaded. And that's that. so I think historically bills of attainder have been mostly for capital, punishment. There also used to be bills of pains and penalties, vague recollection, but the U. S. Constitution Were you Alan Rozenshtein: old enough to remember when Parliament used to do bills of attainder? Yeah, there you go. All that Eugene Volokh: gray hair. so the, so the U. S. Constitution has long forbidden bills of attainder. But the question is, what is a bill of attainder? Whenever we see a law that mentions someone by name, and maybe, interesting question, what about mentioning a business by name, then, people start talking about, maybe that's a bill of attainder, but not all such laws are indeed [00:45:00] unconstitutional. So, again, This is, on the one hand, not a free speech issue, on the other hand, very much an issue in this case, and I suspect many people who may have heard about the case, even if they're not lawyers, would say, wait a minute, this law, it's just the government, the Congress trying to ban a particular business, is that what they're supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to pass general laws that say, here are the criteria that, if met, cause you to be restricted in various ways. So what do you think about this bill of attainder, question, even if just tentative? Alan Rozenshtein: Yeah, I think it's interesting. so a couple of thoughts on the bill of attainder question. So first, there is an open question whether or not the bill of attainder applies to corporations. The Supreme Court has never, Definitively answer that question. I think one lower one appellate court, I forget which one has held that it does apply to corporations. I don't know if there's a circuit split on that or just other circuits haven't gotten to it. But that's [00:46:00] one interesting question. and, especially with the originalist turn that the Supreme Court's had, I think there's going to be a lot of, Justice Alito or, pouring over, 18th century parliamentary records to know was this ever applied to corporations. the second question is, the Bill of Attainder, it's not just about specifically singling someone out. It's specifically singling someone out for punishment and punishment is a technical term of art here. Unfortunately, again, the Supreme Court has never said exactly what a punishment is. There's a historical test and a functional test. so one might argue that this isn't a punishment. Nothing is being stolen. nothing is being taken away from tick tock. No one's being put in jail. This is a proscriptive regulation that tick tock can no longer afford itself of certain, corporate benefits. now, as with many things, There's a certain angels on the head of a pin kind of quality to, is that [00:47:00] a punishment or a regulation? But honestly, this stuff comes up all the time. there are similar logical puzzles in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Is it taking or regulation or whatnot? so that's another question that the courts will have to, decide whether this is a punishment or just a forward looking, prospective. regulation. And the third question is, and this is a part of the law we haven't actually talked about, but it's actually very important. The TikTok ban or divestment and ban is only one part of the law. The law also sets up a broader scheme by which the president can identify other TikTok like companies, which is to say social media platforms that are controlled by Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. and, and trigger a similar divestment type process. And so this raises the question of whether or not the government will be able to use that part of the law to soften the fact that the law also targets tick [00:48:00] tock. that may not be relevant to the bill of attainder issue, but tick tock has also made, other arguments that sound similar swiftly run equal protection that they're getting being singled out. and so the government may point to say, no, this is a general law. We're just starting with tick tock. I don't know if that gets there. I suspect that, and again, I'm not an expert in this, but I have done some preliminary research that the courts will ultimately move. This is just not a punishment. It's not a punishment in the way that the bill of attainder, contemplates that this is a, forward looking, regulation. Eugene Volokh: Got it. Thanks very much. very interesting. Jane, any closing questions or remarks? Jane Bambauer: Yeah, I think one thing that all three of us. expressed at one point is that one thing that makes this topic hard is that it's a, there are national security questions and facts that none of us have access to. And so it's hard to know as [00:49:00] a matter of policy, especially what should happen here. And, Alan Rozenshtein: and we haven't even talked about the international dimensions, potential repercussions. This is a big deal. Eugene Volokh: Big deal, indeed. Alan, thank you so much for joining us. It has been tremendously enlightening for me and I, sure for, our viewers and listeners as well. Jane, always a great pleasure to be on with you. And folks, we'll see you in a couple of weeks with our next episode.

This UVA Speaks podcast features Craig Konnoth, the Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at the University of Virginia's School of Law. Konnoth explains that over the past decade, the LGBTQ movement has shifted its focus from marriage equality and employment discrimination to other critical issues. These include exemption claims like those upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 303 Creative case that allows individuals to deny services to LGBTQ individuals based on their speech or religious rights. Konnoth emphasizes the need to form alliances with other minority groups to safeguard their hard-won progress. Transcripts of the audio broadcast can be found here. Craig Konnoth is the Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Professor Konnoth writes about health, civil rights, and health data regulation. He is also active in LGBTQ rights litigation and has filed briefs on LGBTQ rights issues in the U.S. Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit. His publications have appeared or will appear in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the Hastings Law Journal, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Iowa Law Review, the online companions to the Penn Law Review, and the Washington & Lee Law Review, and as chapters in edited volumes.

Is AI output generally protected by the First Amendment, even though AIs have no self to express (or so we think ...)? Can people sue if they are libeled by AIs, or if AIs give them false information that leads to physical harm? Jane and Eugene discuss this, and more. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

While Sam Bankman-Fried has been on trial, the cryptocurrency exchange he founded, FTX, has been going through bankruptcy proceedings. Jonathan Lipson, a professor at Temple Law School, tells Michael Lewis that he believes the proceedings have highlighted problems with the US bankruptcy system.  Jonathan Lipson's research paper “FTX'd: Conflicting Public and Private Interests in Chapter 11” is forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review. You can read a draft here.  You can listen to our previous interview about the FTX bankruptcy with Jonathan's co-author, David Skeel, here. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The First Amendment protects against certain kinds of indirect government suppression of speech, as well as direct. That means the government can't coerce bookstores, platforms, and the like, to remove material. But when does persuasion become coercion? And when, if ever, is even noncoercive persuasion aimed at the removal of speech unconstitutional? ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

When public school libraries remove books based on the views expressed in the books, are they violating the First Amendment? What if the librarians stocking the shelves have a political agenda? It all comes down to a precedent called Pico, and Eugene and Jane disagree about which Supreme Court justices got the rule right. ABOUT THE SPEAKERS Eugene Volokh is a visiting fellow (soon to be Senior fellow) at the Hoover Institution. For thirty years, he has been a professor at the University of California – Los Angeles School of Law, where he has taught First Amendment law, copyright law, criminal law, tort law, and firearms regulation policy. Volokh is the author of the textbooks The First Amendment and Related Statutes (7th ed., 2020) and Academic Legal Writing (5th ed., 2016), as well as more than one hundred law review articles. He is the founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a leading legal blog. Before coming to UCLA, Volokh clerked for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the US Supreme Court. Jane Bambauer is the Brechner Eminent Scholar at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and the College of Journalism and Communications. She teaches Torts, First Amendment, Media Law, Criminal Procedure, and Privacy Law. Bambauer's research assesses the social costs and benefits of Big Data, AI, and predictive algorithms. Her work analyzes how the regulation of these new information technologies will affect free speech, privacy, law enforcement, health and safety, competitive markets, and government accountability. Bambauer's research has been featured in over 20 scholarly publications, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, the California Law Review, and the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. RELATED RESOURCES: Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982)

This is a very interesting talk about capitalism and its evolution from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman to what he terms “patriotic capitalism”. ROY'S BIO Roy Swan leads the Ford Foundation's Mission Investments team,  investing $1 billion of the endowment in opportunities that generate financial and social returns in the United States and the Global South. Roy also oversees Ford's program-related investments and its impact investing grants program, dedicated to expanding and strengthening the impact investing field. Previously, Roy served as managing director and co-head of Global Sustainable Finance at Morgan Stanley, which committed over $13 billion in community development transactions and also served as president and chief operating officer of Morgan Stanley Trust, and as CEO of Morgan Stanley Impact SBIC. Before Morgan Stanley, Roy was the founding chief investment officer of New York City's Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone (UMEZ), a federal initiative designed to bring new resources to distressed urban communities that played a key role in Harlem's economic rebirth. He also served as CFO at Carver Bancorp, a Harlem-based publicly traded financial institution and the nation's largest African-American managed bank. Earlier in his career, Roy worked at Skadden Arps, First Boston, JPMorgan, and Time Warner. He serves on the boards of Dalton School, Parnassus Funds and Varo Money. Roy holds a bachelors from Princeton and a J.D. from Stanford Law School, where he was an editor of the Stanford Law Review. “In order to have a healthy economy, you need to mind all stakeholders” “Social responsibility is a misnomer, it's [paradoxically] culture-driven value creation corporate self-interest” ROY RELATED LINKS Ford Foundation Princeton's Thrive Forbes Finance Council Pensions & Investments OpEd Discussing ESG on CNBC GENERAL INFO| TOP OF THE GAME: Official website: https://topofthegame-thepod.com/ RSS Feed: https://feed.podbean.com/topofthegame-thepod/feed.xml Hosting service show website: https://topofthegame-thepod.podbean.com/ Javier's LinkTree: https://linktr.ee/javiersaade & Bio: https://tinyurl.com/36ufz6cs  SUPPORT & CONNECT: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/showcase/96934564 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61551086203755 Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOPOFGAMEpod Subscribe on Podbean: https://www.podbean.com/site/podcatcher/index/blog/vLKLE1SKjf6G Email us: info@topofthegame-thepod.com   THANK YOU FOR LISTENING – AVAILABLE ON ALL MAJOR PLATFORMS  

In this special replay Christmas episode, we're diving into a light-hearted but intriguing legal exploration: prosecuting Santa Claus. Yes, you heard that right! We're putting Chris Cringle, aka Saint Nicholas, on the metaphorical stand. Known as the head of a global operation, Santa's actions raise numerous legal questions, from aviation law violations to potential animal welfare concerns.Corinna, with her background as a prosecutor and constitutional scholar, brings a playful yet insightful angle to the discussion. We'll delve into the hypothetical legal ramifications of Santa's global travels, his entry methods into homes, and even the employment practices at his North Pole workshop. Is Santa's operation a case of breaking and entering on a global scale? What about the FAA regulations for his sleigh and reindeer? And let's not forget the potential labor law violations with those hardworking elves!As we unpack these questions, we also touch on the lighter side of the law. How would Santa defend himself in court? Could he claim any legal immunities or special considerations given his unique role in society? And most importantly, what would a jury trial for Santa Claus look like?This episode is a blend of legal theory, festive fun, and a dash of holiday spirit. So, whether you've been naughty or nice, join us for an hour of entertaining legal debate that's sure to add a new dimension to your holiday musings. Remember, this is all in good fun, and no actual Santas were prosecuted in the making of this episode!Guest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and received the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award in 2006. She is a former prosecutor and an Army veteran.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In conversation with Dorothy Roberts One of the country's foremost authorities in civil rights, Black feminist legal theory, race, and the law, Kimberlé Crenshaw is a law professor at UCLA and Columbia Law School, where in 1996 she founded the African American Policy Forum. She is the co-author of Say Her Name: Resisting Police Brutality Against Black Women and Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, and Underprotected, and her articles have appeared in Harvard Law Review, the National Black Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, The New Republic, and The Nation. The coiner of the terms ''critical race theory'' and ''intersectionality,'' Crenshaw served on the legal team of Anita Hill during the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and wrote the background paper on race and gender discrimination for the United Nations' World Conference on Racism in 2001. Including a forward by Janelle Monáe, #SayHerName explains how Black women are especially susceptible to police violence and the ways in which various communities can help empower them. Addressing social justice issues of policing, state surveillance of families, and science, Dorothy Roberts's books include Killing the Black Body, Shattered Bonds, and Fatal Invention. She has also authored more than 100 scholarly articles and has co-edited six books on various legal issues. The George A. Weiss University Professor of Law and Sociology and the Raymond Pace and Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Professor of Civil Rights at the University of Pennsylvania, Roberts is the director of the Penn Program on Race, Science, and Society. In her latest book Torn Apart she explains that the abolition of the U.S. child welfare system-which is designed to punish Black families-will liberate Black communities. Because you love Author Events, please make a donation to keep our podcasts free for everyone. THANK YOU! (recorded 11/14/2023)

Anchoring Truths Podcast host Garrett Snedeker welcomes Prof. Kevin Walsh of Catholic Law for a briefing on Prof. Walsh's recent conversation with Justice Amy Barrett that touched on the institutional authority of the Supreme Court. Topics covered include Justice Barrett's apparent rejection of judicial supremacy and more thoroughly the debate over judicial supremacy versus departmentalism. Kevin C. Walsh is a professor at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, and co-director of the Law School's Project on Constitutional Originalism and the Catholic Intellectual Tradition. Professor Walsh teaches federal courts, constitutional law, torts, agency and partnership, and a seminar on law in the Catholic intellectual tradition. Professor Walsh's scholarship focuses on doctrines that define the scope of federal judicial power, and has appeared in the Georgetown Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, and the Notre Dame Law Review, among other venues. Prior to joining Catholic Law, Professor Walsh taught at the University of Richmond School of Law for thirteen years. He previously practiced law at Hunton & Williams LLP. Professor Walsh clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court of the United States and for Judge Paul V. Niemeyer on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the University of Notre Dame, and Dartmouth College. Watch Prof. Walsh's discussion with Justice Barrett on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJUHuu2aoP4

According to the non-profit Mapping Police Violence, since 2013 when experts first starting tracking police shootings, last year was the deadliest year on record with 1,176 law enforcement gun deaths, or more than three people per day and nearly 100 per month.  In 2022 Blacks were three three times more likely to be killed by police than Whites.  However in, for example, MPLS and Chicago, Black shooting deaths were respectively 28 and 25 times more likely than White.   In her recently published book by Viking Press, Prof. Schwartz explains how the corruption of the 4th amendment and Civil Rights law, the creation of the legal fiction “qualified immunity” and other reasons make it nearly impossible to police the police.  During this 38-minute interview, Prof. Schwartz begins by discussing the case of Ornee Norris. She in turn explains the courts' undermining of 4th amendment's protection from unreasonable searches, civil rights protections, specifically section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, and the Supreme Courts 1967 creation of, in Pierson v. Ray, of qualified immunity, discusses the case of systematic violence by Vellejo, CA, police, the failure by governments to learn from these cases, efforts by states to pass laws ending qualified immunity, notes the value of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and finally comments on the issue of the militarization of the police. Joanna Schwartz is Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law and the Faculty Director of the David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy.  She was a recipient of UCLA's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2015 and served as Vice Dean for Faculty Development from 2017-2019. Beyond Shielded, her recent scholarship has been published in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, New York University Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and elsewhere. She has also written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic, The Boston Review, and Politico, and has appeared on NPR's Fresh Air, CBS Sunday Morning, PBS NewsHour, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, and elsewhere. Professor Schwartz is also co-author with Stephen Yeazell and Maureen Carroll of a leading casebook, Civil Procedure (11th Edition). Professor Schwartz was graduated from Brown University and Yale Law School. She clerked for Judge Denise Cote of the Southern District of New York and Judge Harry Pregerson of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.   This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

In this episode, my great friend and colleague, Danielle Citron, joins me and UVA Law students Gabriele Josephs and Aamina Mariam to discuss her latest book, The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age (W.W. Norton, Penguin Vintage UK, 2022). Danielle Citron is the Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law and Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law at UVA, where she writes and teaches about privacy, free expression and civil rights. Her scholarship and advocacy have been recognized nationally and internationally. She is a 2019 MacArthur Fellow and the Vice President of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which has been advocating for civil rights and liberties on equal terms in the digital age since 2013. Her latest book, The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age (W.W. Norton, Penguin Vintage UK, 2022) was published in October 2022 and has been featured and excerpted in Wired, Fortune, and Washington Monthly, among others, and named by Amazon as a Top 100 book of 2022. Her first book, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press, 2014), was named one of the 20 Best Moments for Women in 2014 by the editors of Cosmopolitan magazine. She has also published more than 50 articles and essays. Show Notes: Citron, Danielle Keats, The Surveilled Student (August 25, 2023). Stanford Law Review, v. 76 (Forthcoming) , Virginia Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper 2023-61, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4552267 The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age (W.W. Norton, Penguin Vintage UK, 2022) Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press, 2014)

Prepare to confront a hard truth: the United States, a beacon of freedom and justice to many, shockingly ranks 6th in global state executions, even outpacing Pakistan. As we continue our "March for Life" series this week, we delve deep into the labyrinth of this disconcerting fact, guided by the insights of eminent constitutional law expert, Professor Corinna Lain.Public perception often leads us to associate state executions with countries like China, Saudi Arabia, or Iran - nations often criticized for their human rights records. However, the reality is starkly different and might be hard to swallow. America, often considered a progressive force globally, finds itself uncomfortably close to these nations when it comes to one of the most contentious aspects of its justice system - capital punishment.The issue of capital punishment is complex and multifaceted. At its core, it's a system that ends lives, deemed by many as an incredibly brutal, even barbaric, form of punishment. It strikes a direct blow at our fundamental human rights, the right to life being paramount among them.Moreover, it raises critical questions about the state's role and the boundaries of its power: How far should the state go in its pursuit of justice? Does it have the right to take away life - the very thing it is supposed to protect?Besides the ethical and moral questions, there is also the issue of its effectiveness as a deterrent to crime. Numerous studies have shown little to no conclusive evidence supporting the argument that capital punishment deters crime more effectively than other forms of punishment. Is it, then, not a primitive form of justice, obsolete in the modern era?Join us as we navigate this complicated, often uncomfortable topic, breaking it down to its essence, and prompting you to question its place in our justice system. This enlightening conversation with Professor Lain simplifies the intricacies of capital punishment, inviting you to critically evaluate the efficacy and morality of this form of criminal justice.You won't leave this episode without learning something new and profound. And while the subject may be grim, we trust that you'll appreciate our honest and thought-provoking discussion.Guest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain, a celebrated constitutional law scholar, is known for her exploration of extralegal norms' impact on Supreme Court rulings, especially in capital punishment. Through the prism of legal history, her work has been published in reputable journals including Stanford Law Review and Duke Law Journal. An elected member of the American Law Institute, Prof. Lain is also the recipient of the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award (2006). A former prosecutor and an Army veteran, her esteemed career reflects her commitment to the law.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In this episode, we focus on the recent indictment and arraignment of former President Donald Trump. Joining us for this discussion is Robert L. Deitz, a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. With his extensive experience as the top lawyer for the director of the CIA and as the general counsel at the NSA, Deitz brings valuable insights into the legal and intelligence aspects of the case. We also have guest host, Professor Corinna Barrett Lain,  a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decision making.We begin by providing an overview of the indictment and the specific charges brought against Trump. Deitz guides us through the legal basis for the indictment and outlines the key allegations. We explore the potential implications and consequences for Trump if found guilty.Moving on to the arraignment process, we delve into its significance in the legal proceedings. Deitz explains the procedural aspects of the arraignment and its role in establishing the framework for the trial. We discuss the potential strategies that Trump's legal team might employ during the arraignment.Looking ahead, we consider the possible outcomes of the trial and their significance. Deitz shares insights into the legal strategies and arguments that might be presented during the trial. We discuss the timeline of the proceedings and anticipate future developments in the case, keeping an eye on how they might shape Trump's political landscape, and the potential prison sentences.Finally we answer listener questions and look at comparisons to the Clinton email server and the Airman Jack Teixeira Discord leaks. Helpful reads:Read the full 49-page indictmentRead the Court Transcripts during the arraignmentGuest Bios:Robert L. Deitz is a professor in the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University. Previously, he served as senior councillor to the director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 until February 2009. From September 1998 to September 2006, Deitz was the general counsel at the National Security Agency where he represented the NSA in all legal matters. He has also held positions as acting general counsel at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and as acting deputy general counsel, intelligence, at the Department of Defense.Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In episode 182 of America Adapts, Doug Parsons host Mark Nevitt, a former Navy Jag and now Law professor at Emory University.  Mark shares his insights on the intersection of law and climate change. They discuss how US laws were created during a much more stable climate and how the legal system has not kept up with the current climate moment. The takings clause in the US Constitution is now relevant for climate change and Mark and Doug dig into this issue. Mark also considers his military experience good preparation to get into climate adaptation. We also discuss whether judges should recuse themselves if they are climate skeptics and should we amend the US Constitution to address important adaptation issues. Also, what would happen if the President declared a national emergency around climate change. Join us for this fascinating discussion on the challenges and opportunities at the intersection of law and climate change. Topics covered: ·         Mark's military background in the Navy and military justice informs his perspective on climate change adaptation. ·         US laws were created during a time of more stable climate, which poses legal uncertainties for climate adaptation measures. ·         The takings clause in the US Constitution is relevant to climate change adaptation.  ·         Cities that commit funding for infrastructure are now liable to maintain it, even in the face of long-term climate impacts.  ·         Climate skeptics may pose a challenge to legal decisions in climate adaptation cases, raising questions about judge recusal. ·         Is there a need to amend the US Constitution to address important adaptation issues? ·         Without a change in legal doctrine, climate adaptation will default to unmanaged retreat, exacerbating existing inequalities. ·         A declaration of a national emergency around climate change by the President could help to spur action on climate adaptation.  ·         The 5th Amendment presents challenges for implementing many climate adaptation measures due to its provisions on property rights and compensation. Subscribe to the America Adapts newsletter here. Donate to America Adapts Listen to America Adapts on your favorite app here! Facebook, Linkedin and Twitter: https://www.facebook.com/americaadapts/ @usaadapts https://www.linkedin.com/in/doug-parsons-america-adapts/https://www.linkedin.com/in/marknevitt/@marknevitt https://twitter.com/emorylaw?lang=en Links in this episode: Mark Nevitt Emory Profile: https://law.emory.edu/faculty/faculty-profiles/nevitt-profile.html Link to the paper The Legal Crisis Within the Climate Crisis, forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review:  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4372312 Emory Climate Research Initiative:  https://news.emory.edu/stories/2022/12/er_climate_initiative_02-12-2022/story.html Emory's Environmental Law Clinic:  https://law.emory.edu/academics/clinics/faculty-led-clinics/turner-environmental-law-clinic.html Lawfare and Just Security climate pages - https://www.lawfareblog.com/contributors/mnevitt and https://www.justsecurity.org/author/nevittmark/ How do We Manage Managed Retreat?  https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/research/publications/climate-adaptation-strategies-how-do-we-manage-managed-retreat/ Mark Nevitt Scholarship website on SSRN:  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1916527 Previous America Adapts Episodes Referenced in this Episode Episode 156: Affordable Housing and Climate Change with Laurie Schoeman of Enterprise Community Partners with Laurie Schoeman Episode 116:  The Biggest Short: Climate Change meets the 30-Year Home Mortgage with Dr. Jesse Keenan Donate to America Adapts Follow on Apple Podcasts Follow on Android Doug Parsons and Speaking Opportunities: If you are interested in having Doug speak at corporate and conference events, sharing his unique, expert perspective on adaptation in an entertaining and informative way, more information can be found here! Now on Spotify! List of Previous Guests on America Adapts Follow/listen to podcast on Apple Podcasts. Donate to America Adapts, we are now a tax deductible charitable organization! Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Strategies to Address Climate Change Risk in Low- and Moderate-income Communities - Volume 14, Issue 1 https://www.frbsf.org/community-development/publications/community-development-investment-review/2019/october/strategies-to-address-climate-change-low-moderate-income-communities/   Podcasts in the Classroom – Discussion guides now available for the latest episode of America Adapts. These guides can be used by educators at all levels. Check them out here! The 10 Best Sustainability Podcasts for Environmental Business Leadershttps://us.anteagroup.com/news-events/blog/10-best-sustainability-podcasts-environmental-business-leaders The best climate change podcasts on The Climate Advisorhttp://theclimateadvisor.com/the-best-climate-change-podcasts/ 7 podcasts to learn more about climate change and how to fight ithttps://kinder.world/articles/you/7-podcasts-to-learn-more-about-climate-change-and-how-to-fight-it-19813 Directions on how to listen to America Adapts on Amazon Alexahttps://youtu.be/949R8CRpUYU America Adapts also has its own app for your listening pleasure!  Just visit the App store on Apple or Google Play on Android and search “America Adapts.” Join the climate change adaptation movement by supporting America Adapts!  Please consider supporting this podcast by donating through America Adapts fiscal sponsor, the Social Good Fund. All donations are now tax deductible! For more information on this podcast, visit the website at http://www.americaadapts.org and don't forget to subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts.   Podcast Music produce by Richard Haitz Productions Write a review on Apple Podcasts ! America Adapts on Facebook!   Join the America Adapts Facebook Community Group. Check us out, we're also on YouTube! Executive Producer Dr. Jesse Keenan Subscribe to America Adapts on Apple Podcasts Doug can be contacted at americaadapts @ g mail . com

This week on Breaking Battlegrounds, we are honored to be joined by friend of the show, Congressman David Schweikert of Arizona's First Congressional District. Later in the show, we check in with Ilan Wurman, who is working on a critical lawsuit over “The Zone,” a homeless encampment in downtown Phoenix. -David Schweikert is serving his fifth term in the United States Congress.  He holds a seat on the Ways and Means Committee, and serves as the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security. Prior to his service on the Ways and Means Committee, David served on the House Committee on Financial Services.David also sits on the bicameral Joint Economic Committee, Co-Chairs the Valley Fever Task force with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and is the Republican Co-Chair of both the Blockchain Caucus, the Tunisia Caucus and the Caucus on Access to Capital and Credit.Among his legislative accomplishments, David was instrumental in authoring and passing the JOBS ACT into law. The bill was signed by the President in April 2012. Having previously served as Chairman of the EPA Oversight Subcommittee on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee; David championed key reforms such as the Secret Science Reform Act, which has passed the House of Representatives.A national leader on tribal policy, David draws on a unique background working with Arizona's tribal communities on important priorities.   He is always eager to take on a technical challenge.As a strong advocate for efficiencies in the 21st Century economy, David collaborates with entrepreneurs and innovators in Arizona and around the world on ways to increase trade and drive economic growth.  David is the co-chair of the Blockchain Caucus, and has championed technological innovations as the solution to the problems of over-burdensome government regulations.-Ilan Wurman is an associate professor at the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where he teaches administrative law and constitutional law. He writes primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment, administrative law, separation of powers, and constitutionalism. His academic writing has appeared or is forthcoming in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the Virginia Law Review, the Duke Law Journal, the Minnesota Law Review, and the Texas Law Review among other journals. He is also the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism (Cambridge 2017), and The Second Founding: An Introduction to the Fourteenth Amendment (Cambridge 2020).-Connect with us:www.breakingbattlegrounds.voteTwitter: www.twitter.com/Breaking_BattleFacebook: www.facebook.com/breakingbattlegroundsInstagram: www.instagram.com/breakingbattlegroundsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/breakingbattlegrounds This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit breakingbattlegrounds.substack.com

Do you ever wish you had a manual for what to say in certain situations? Cultural Awareness powerhouses Kenji Yoshino and David Glasgow's Say the Right Thing: How to Talk About Identity, Diversity, and Justice describes itself as “a practical, shame-free guide for navigating conversations across our differences at a time of rapid social change.” While we navigate a significant time of divisiveness and unrest, conversations about identity are becoming more frequent, but also arguably more complex. When discussing subjects such as critical race theory, gender equity in the workplace, and LGBTQ-inclusive classrooms, many of us with good intentions may find ourselves fearful of saying the wrong thing and hurting someone or being misunderstood. That fear can sometimes prevent us from speaking up at all, which can have the detrimental effect of stalling progress toward a more just and inclusive society. As founders of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging at NYU School of Law, Yoshino and Glasgow share a goal of showing potential allies that these conversations don't have to be so overwhelming. Through stories drawn from social media posts, dinner party conversations, and workplace disputes, they offer seven user-friendly principles that are supported by research and teach skills like avoiding common conversational pitfalls, engaging in respectful disagreement, offering authentic apologies, and better supporting the people in our lives who experience bias. Say the Right Thing seeks to encourage us away from cancel culture and shame toward more meaningful and empathetic dialogue on issues of identity on both large and small scales. Whether managing diverse teams at work, navigating issues of inclusion at college, or challenging biased comments at a family barbecue, Yoshino and Glasgow may help us move from unconsciously hurting people to consciously helping them. Kenji Yoshino is the Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU School of Law and the director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. A graduate of Harvard (AB summa cum laude), Oxford (MSc as a Rhodes Scholar), and Yale (JD), he specializes in constitutional law, antidiscrimination law, and law and literature. Yoshino taught at Yale Law School from 1998 to 2008, where he served as Deputy Dean and the inaugural Guido Calabresi Professor of Law. He is the author of three books: Covering: The Hidden Assault on Our Civil Rights; A Thousand Times More Fair: What Shakespeare's Plays Teach Us About Justice; and Speak Now: Marriage Equality on Trial. Yoshino has published in major academic journals, including the Harvard Law Review, the Stanford Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. He makes regular appearances on radio and television programs, such as NPR, CNN, PBS and MSNBC. He has won numerous awards for his scholarship and teaching, including the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award in 2016 and the Podell Distinguished Teaching Award in 2014. David Glasgow is the executive director of the Meltzer Center for Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging and an adjunct professor of law at NYU School of Law. In his role at the Meltzer Center, he develops and executes educational programs on diversity and inclusion for internal and external clients, coordinates a speaker series and other events on contemporary diversity and inclusion issues, and manages the center's general operations. He has co-taught courses at the Law School on leadership, diversity, and inclusion, and co-authored a book with Kenji Yoshino, Say the Right Thing: How to Talk about Identity, Diversity, and Justice. David graduated with a BA in philosophy and an LLB (First Class Honors) from the University of Melbourne, and a Master of Laws (LLM) from NYU School of Law, where he received the David H. Moses Memorial Prize and the George Colin Award. Prior to joining the Meltzer Center, he practiced employee relations and anti-discrimination law in Melbourne, Australia, and then served as an Associate Director of the Public Interest Law Center at NYU School of Law. Jane Park is the CEO of Athena Consumer, an all women founded Special Purpose Acquisition Company, as well as CEO and Founder of Tokki, a social & sustainable giftwrap company. Prior to founding Tokki, Ms. Park was the CEO and Founder of Julep, an on-line first beauty brand now distributed nationally at Ulta stores as well as on QVC and Nordstrom. Ms. Park was also an executive at Starbucks in the New Ventures division where she launched new consumer businesses. She was also a leader at the Boston Consulting Group in the Retail and Consumer Goods practice group, and a founding director of the CEO Forum for Education and Technology with luminaires such as Steve Jobs (CEO Apple) and Eckhard Pfeiffer (CEO Compaq). Ms. Park serves on the Board of Directors of Athena Consumer, Glo Beauty, and the Washington State Opportunity Scholarship, and regularly appears on television as well as consumer, technology, and women's leadership conferences.  She is a graduate of the Princeton School of Public Policy and International Affairs and Yale Law School. Say the Right Thing: How to Talk About Identity, Diversity, and Justice Third Place Books

It's no secret that Kris Kringle, aka Saint Nicholas, aka, Santa Clause is the head of a global crime syndicate, but what you may not know is the depths and extent of his crimes. This week we have one of our favorite law professors, Corinna Lain, to help walk us through some potential crimes that may have been committed by this red suited, grandma trampling fugitive. We cover a range of crimes from unlawful entry to possible violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act. They also discuss the difficulties of jury selection and possible criminal culpability of the elves and even Mrs. Clause!Guest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and received the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award in 2006. She is a former prosecutor and an Army veteran.Support the showTo learn more about the show, contact our hosts, or recommend future guests, click on the links below: Website: https://www.faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/ Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Political Host: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.com Twitter: @FaithfulPolitik Instagram: faithful_politics Facebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast LinkedIn: faithfulpolitics

In de vijfde aflevering bespreekt Evelien de manier waarop onzichtbaarheid en uitwissing discriminerende wetten overbodig maken, met hulp van een Twitterdraadje van Lux Alptraum. Ook praat ze met Sven over de relatie tussen gender en seksualiteit, over queer en trans jongerengroepen, en over het navigeren van ruimtes die nooit helemaal voor jou zijn. Voor goede bi-vibes: abonneer je en laat een (5-sterren) review achter op Apple Podcasts of Spotify. Instagram: @biseksueeldepod Twitter: @biseksueeldepod Contact: biseksueeldepod@gmail.com Productie, montage, muziek en illustraties door Evelien Feys REFERENTIES: The B+ Squad newsletter van Lux Alptraum Het Twitterdraadje van Lux Alptraum Het artikel in TIME dat de term 'Transgender Tipping Point' lanceerde De paper van Yoshino: Yoshino, K. (2000). The Epistemic Contract of Bisexual Erasure. Stanford Law Review, 52(2), 353–461. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229482 T-Jong Queer trans @ UA en hun open brief (die je kan ondertekenen) The Empire Strikes Back: A Posttranssexual Manifesto van Sandy Stone Meer informatie over Gendernauts en Genderation, twee documentaires van Monika Treut Het artikel in De Moeial over het transgenderbeleid aan de UGent

In this episode, Amy interviews Professor Bill Henderson of the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.  Prof. Henderson's research focuses primarily on the empirical analysis of the legal profession and has appeared in leading legal journals, including the Stanford Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and the Texas Law Review.  He regularly publishes articles in The American Lawyer, The ABA Journal, and The National Law Journal.  His observations on the legal market are also frequently quoted in the mainstream press, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Atlantic Monthly, The Economist, and National Public Radio. Based on his research and public speaking, Professor Henderson was included on the National Law Journal's list of The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America (complied every ten years).  In 2015 and 2016, he was named the Most Influential Person in Legal Education by The National Jurist magazine. In addition to his research and teaching, Professor Henderson has participated in several legal innovation initiatives: 2018 to present: Co-founder of the Institute for the Future of Law Practice (IFLP, “i-flip”), a nonprofit that designs and delivers curricula and training for T-shaped legal professions (i.e., law combined with data, process, technology, design principles, and business). 2017 to present: Founder and editor of Legal Evolution, an online applied research publication focused on successful legal industry innovation. 2010-2016: Co-founder of Lawyer Metrics, an applied research company that helps lawyers and law firms use data to make better operational and strategic decisions. Lawyer Metrics (now LawyerMetrix) was acquired by AccessLex Institute in 2015.  Additional links mentioned in the podcast: On diffusion theory: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/scoring-your-innovation-098/   On the CRT: https://www.legalevolution.org/2019/06/is-access-to-justice-a-design-problem-099/

A Bitch, A Cow, And A Pig Walked Into A Bar: Why Misogynists Animalize Women - Sherry Colb JD Sherry Colb • http://www lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/sherry-colb• Book – Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger? #SherryColb  #Veganism #Vegan Sherry Colb is an C.S. Wong Professor of Law at Cornell Law School and author of the book,  Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger?: And Other Questions People Ask Vegans. If you're vegan, how many times have you been asked these, and other similarly challenging, questions from non-vegans? What about plants? Don't animals eat other animals? There are no perfect vegans, so why bother?  Using humor and reason, Sherry Colb takes these questions at face value and also delves deeply into the motivations behind them, coming up with answers that are not only intelligent but insightful about human nature. Through examples, case studies, and clear-eyed logic, she provides arguments for everything from why veganism is compatible with the world's major religions to why vegetarianism is not enough. In the end, she shows how it is possible for vegans and non-vegans to engage in a mutually beneficial conversation without descending into counterproductive name-calling, and to work together to create a more hospitable world for human animals and non-human animals alike.She earned an A.B. from Columbia College (Valedictorian) and a J.D. from Harvard Law School (magna cum laude). After graduation, Colb clerked for Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun of the United States Supreme Court.  She was a member of the Rutgers University School of Law faculty in Newark when she joined the Cornell faculty in 2008 and has held the position of Visiting Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and Columbia Law School.Her research and teaching interests center on issues of constitutional criminal procedure (especially the Fourth Amendment), animal rights, sexual equality, and evidence. Colb's scholarship has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, the New York University Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the Michigan Law Review, and elsewhere. She has published a book about the modern challenges of sex equality, When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law (Rowman & Littlefield 2007), and she authored a book about veganism and animal rights, “Mind If I Order the Cheeseburger?” and Other Questions People Ask Vegans (Lantern 2013). Most recently, she has co-authored a book about animal rights and abortion, Beating Hearts:Abortion and Animal Rights (Columbia University Press 2016).  She composes a bi-weekly column on Verdict.Justia.com as well as regular posts on the blog, Dorf on Law. She is admitted to the New York Bar and the U.S. Supreme Court Bar.To Contact Sherry Colb go to lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/sherry-colb CLICK HERE - To Checkout Our MEMBERSHIP CLUB: http://www.realtruthtalks.com • Social Media ChannelsFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/TRTAHConferenceInstagram : https://www.instagram.com/therealtruthabouthealth/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/RTAHealth Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-real-truth-about-health-conference/ Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealTruthAboutHealth    • Check out our Podcasts  Visit us on Apple Podcast and Itunes search:  The Real Truth About Health Free 17 Day Live Online Conference Podcast Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/23a037be-99dd-4099-b9e0-1cad50774b5a/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0RZbS2BafJIEzHYyThm83J Google:https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5zaW1wbGVjYXN0LmNvbS8yM0ZqRWNTMg%3D%3DStitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastAudacy: https://go.audacy.com/partner-podcast-listen-real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcastiHeartRadio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-real-truth-about-health-li-85932821/ Deezer: https://www.deezer.com/us/show/2867272 Reason: https://reason.fm/podcast/real-truth-about-health-live-online-conference-podcast • Other Video ChannelsYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealTruthAboutHealthVimeo:https://vimeo.com/channels/1733189Rumble:  https://rumble.com/c/c-1111513 Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/TRTAHConference/videos/?ref=page_internal DailyMotion: https://www.dailymotion.com/TheRealTruthAboutHealth BitChute:https://www.bitchute.com/channel/JQryXTPDOMih/ Disclaimer:Medical and Health information changes constantly. Therefore, the information provided in this podcast should not be considered current, complete, or exhaustive. Reliance on any information provided in this podcast is solely at your own risk. The Real Truth About Health does not recommend or endorse any specific tests, products, procedures, or opinions referenced in the following podcasts, nor does it exercise any authority or editorial control over that material. The Real Truth About Health provides a forum for discussion of public health issues. The views and opinions of our panelists do not necessarily reflect those of The Real Truth About Health and are provided by those panelists in their individual capacities. The Real Truth About Health has not reviewed or evaluated those statements or claims. 

Welcome to episode #840 of Six Pixels of Separation. Here it is: Six Pixels of Separation - Episode #840. The power of middlemen has, fundamentally, changed the shape of business and our economy. Kathryn Judge is the author of Direct - The Rise of the Middleman Economy and the Power of Going to the Source. In this book, she explores how powerful middlemen and complex supply chains have transformed our lives and how to reclaim the community, connection, and meaning lost along the way. Kathryn is a law professor, author, financial regulation expert, and mother of two. Kate (as she prefers to be called) joined the faculty at Columbia Law School in 2010 and currently serves as the Harvey J. Goldschmid Professor of Law. Her research shows how we can promote a more resilient and accountable financial system, and how regulatory design can enhance the legitimacy and efficacy of financial regulation. Her articles have been published in top journals, including Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review, etc. and have received accolades from academic peers and industry. She is an editor of the Journal of Financial Regulation and a research member of the European Corporate Governance Institute. Enjoy the conversation... Running time: 57:33. Hello from beautiful Montreal. Subscribe over at Apple Podcasts. Please visit and leave comments on the blog - Six Pixels of Separation. Feel free to connect to me directly on Facebook here: Mitch Joel on Facebook. or you can connect on LinkedIn. ...or on Twitter. Here is my conversation with Kathryn Judge. Direct - The Rise of the Middleman Economy and the Power of Going to the Source. Follow Kathryn on LinkedIn. Follow Kathryn on Twitter. This week's music: David Usher 'St. Lawrence River'.

Charles Jung, Executive Director of the California Asian Pacific American (APA) Bar Association and organizer with the Asian Justice Movement, joins Jerry to talk about growing up in the Midwest (and Korea!), his journey through law and becoming a lawyer, and being part of the Asian American community in the Bay Area.. Listen in as Charles and Jerry talk about the Korean American experience, advocating for the voiceless in our community, and what we can do to take action to protect each other.Meet CharlesCharles is a trial attorney who loves practicing law.  His focus is both defending companies in employment/wage cases, and representing executives, professionals, and founders in internal investigations and high-level separations.  In his employment and wage & hour defense practice, his clients have ranged from large publicly-held companies to smaller, privately-held businesses.  Charles helps executives tell their true stories, reclaim their reputations, and find redemption inside and outside the courtroom. Charles has substantial experience in trade secrets/employee mobility litigation and in class action litigation.  He is a frequent commentator in the legal press on these topics.   Educational Background: Charles earned his law degree from Stanford Law School, graduating with distinction. While at Stanford, he served as an Articles Editor for the Stanford Law Review. He earned his bachelor's degree, magna cum laude, from Duke University with a dual degree in economics and public policy. Charles earned his master's degree in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School. At Harvard, Mr. Jung was a Kennedy Fellow. Connect with Charleshttps://www.linkedin.com/in/charlesjung/ https://www.instagram.com/charles.jung/ https://www.facebook.com/chasjunghttps://www.tiktok.com/@chasjungEpisode 161 with Charles Jung is a 10 part special series with Stand with Asian Americans entitled "Dear Asian Americans, What Now?" exploring what we are going through as a community during the past two+ years amidst the rising anti-Asian violence and hate crimes. We thank our friends at SwAA for their support of Dear Asian Americans.// Support Dear Asian Americans:NEW LOGO MERCH: https://www.bonfire.com/store/dearasianamericans/Buy Me a Coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jerrywonLearn more about DAA Creator and Host Jerry Won:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jerrywon/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jerryjwon/// Listen to Dear Asian Americans on all major platforms:Transistor.fm: http://www.dearasianamericans.comApple: https://apple.dearasianamericans.comSpotify: https://spotify.dearasianamericans.comStitcher: https://stitcher.dearasianamericans.comGoogle: https://google.dearasianamericans.com  Follow us on Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/dearasianamericans Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dearasianamericans Subscribe to our YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/dearasianamericans // Join the Asian Podcast Network:Web: https://asianpodcastnetwork.com/Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/asianpodcastnetwork/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/asianpodcastnetwork/Dear Asian Americans is produced by Just Like Media:Web: http://www.justlikemedia.comInstagram.com: http://www.instagram.com/justlikemedia

In this episode, Neil, Natalia, and Niki discuss the growing popularity of prenuptial agreements. Support Past Present on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/pastpresentpodcast Here are some links and references mentioned during this week's show:  Prenuptial agreements are becoming more common among millennials. Niki cited this New York Times article, and Neil referred to legal scholar Allison A. Marston's Stanford Law Review article on the politics of prenups. Natalia referenced some of these celebrity couples whose prenuptial agreements made news.   In our regular closing feature, What's Making History: Natalia recommended the podcast, “Normal Gossip.” Neil commented on the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act by the House of Representatives. Niki shared her latest CNN column, “Controlling Who Can Travel or Talk About Abortion Brings a Dark Past Into Our Present.”

NOTE: this episode contains graphic and explicit content based on its thematic focus on wartime sexual violence. In this episode, the #BruteCast continues its focus on the war in #Ukraine with Dr. Dara Kay Cohen, who discusses issues of wartime sexual violence and what is currently known about sexual violence from #Russia's ongoing invasion of #Ukraine. The Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict (SVAC) dataset that Dr. Cohen references in this presentation can be accessed here: http://www.sexualviolencedata.org/ In a 2021 article in the Annual Review of Political Science, Dr. Cohen reassessed the literature on wartime sexual violence to develop a deeper understanding about when, where, why, and under what conditions sexual violence occurs as well as its consequences. That article can be accessed here: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102620 Dr. Dara Kay Cohen is Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. She is an internationally-known expert on gender and sexual violence in conflict, civil wars, gender studies, and feminist theory. Her research has been published in top-tier peer-reviewed journals including the American Political Science Review, International Security, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Stanford Law Review, and International Organization. She has also published two books, Rape during Civil War (Cornell University Press, 2016) and Lynching and Local Justice: Legitimacy and Accountability in Weak States (Cambridge University Press, 2020), the latter co-authored with Dr. Danielle F. Jung. Dr. Cohen has a PhD in Political Science from Stanford University and was previously a paralegal in the Outstanding Scholars Program in the Counterterrorism Section of the U.S. Department of Justice (2001-2003) and an assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Minnesota. For additional information on this episode's content, Dr. Cohen may be reached at: dara_cohen@hks.harvard.edu Intro/outro music is "Evolution" from BenSound.com (https://www.bensound.com) Follow the Krulak Center: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thekrulakcenter Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thekrulakcenter/ Twitter: @TheKrulakCenter YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcIYZ84VMuP8bDw0T9K8S3g LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/brute-krulak-center-for-innovation-and-future-warfare Krulak Center homepage on The Landing: https://unum.nsin.us/kcic

Marina Torres is a native of Ontario, California, and the daughter of immigrants. As a teenager, she worked behind the counter at Burger King to make ends meet, before heading to UC Berkeley, where, in 2004, she obtained a BA in Political Science, Rhetoric and Ethnic Studies. She got her JD from Stanford University, where she was the co-President of the Stanford Latino Law Students Association and an editor of the Stanford Law Review. Her resume includes a stint in the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration and several years as a litigator in a number of high profile law firms. She is currently an Assistant US Attorney for the Greater Los Angeles Area.

Welcome to part one of our "Waves" episodes everyone! This is month one of season one here at Grabbing Back, THE place for all things feminist theory and good chat. We're chatting to the amazing Gillian Love about ‘the waves of feminism'; when were they, what were they, did they even exist and what should we, as modern feminists learn or critique about them. Content warning: discussions touched on homophobia and transphobia - without graphic details. References and recommendations This is a list of some of the sources mentioned in this episode, plus other recommended texts on the theme of first and second wave feminism. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and we recommend them not as a full-throated support of all of their contents, but as representations of particular feminist positions. First wave feminism Mary Wollestonecraft. 1792. A Vindication of the Rights of Women – The ‘proto-feminist' text Sojourner Truth. 1851. ‘Ain't I A Woman?' – Speech at the 1851 Akron Women's Convention – speaking back to white-centric views of womanhood and feminism and arguing for abolition of slavery. Second wave feminism Betty Friedan. 1963. The Feminine Mystique. – Argues that women are not simply fulfilled by the role of housewife and mother. Shulamith Firestone. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex. – A socialist feminist take on sex, reproduction, and gender relations. Content note: its sections on race are widely critiqued and reflect arguably racist ideology. Andrea Dworkin. 1974. Woman Hating. – A radical feminist text on the representation of women, including in pornography. Andrea Dworkin. 1984. Intercourse. – A radical feminist text on sex, heterosexual dynamics, and violence. Catherine McKinnon. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State – An examination of the basis of gender inequality through the lens of political and legal theory. Combahee River Collective Statement. 1977 – A manifesto for Black Feminism, a movement running concurrently to, but somewhat separate from, Second Wave Feminism. Bell Hooks. 1981. Ain't I A Woman? Black Women and Feminism. – An influential Black Feminist text. Kimberlé Crenshaw. 1989. Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1241-1299 – Highly influential article credited with coining the term ‘intersectionality.' Important within Black feminism, this concept would go on to be central to the third wave too.

Daniel Solove is a skilled expert in privacy law and the President and CEO of TeachPrivacy, a company providing data security and privacy training to businesses, healthcare institutions, and other organizations. He is also the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. Daniel has written 10 books and more than 50 law review articles for the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, and more. He has been featured in hundreds of articles and broadcasts in outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN. In this episode… How much does your team really know about privacy laws? Are you taking steps to ensure that your company's privacy and data security is up to date? Daniel Solove, a leading privacy expert, is passionate about educating companies about privacy. This interest led to the development of his company, TeachPrivacy, which offers comprehensive privacy training programs for organizations. Now, Daniel is here to share his advice on how you can educate your employees on the subject of privacy laws in an engaging and informative way — so you can stay compliant and protected. In this episode of She Said Privacy/He Said Security, Jodi and Justin Daniels sit down with Daniel Solove, the President and CEO of TeachPrivacy, to discuss how to educate your team on data privacy and security. Daniel reveals how to lead engaging training sessions on privacy laws, the different types of privacy laws that employees should be aware of, and his own tips and tricks on personal security and privacy.

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Saronik interviews Kim about intersectionality, a concept developed by Kimberlé Crenshaw. Kim references two essays by Crenshaw in the episode: one that she read, and one that our previous podcast guest, Chad Hegelmeyer taught. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991) https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039 (Kim read this one) “Demarginalizing the Intersections of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of Chicago Legal Forum Iss. 1 (1989) https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8/ (Chad taught this one) Kim recommends that you read the latter. This week's image is a painting by Alma Thomas, titled “Light Blue Nursery” (1968). The image is made available under a Creative Commons license by the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Hvad sker der når feminister lægger transpersoner for had og det bliver grebet af den yderste højrefløj, kristne abortmodstandere, reaktionære kulturkrigere og sensationshungrende mainstreammedier? Det undersøger Cybernauterne i vores nye podcastserie “Kønskrigerne”Kønskrigerne handler om de transekskluderende radikalfeminister, også kaldet TERFs, og hvordan denne oprindeligt lille og snævre gren af feminismen i de seneste år har vokset sig til en bred mainstreambevægelse, der godt hjulpet af med kristne lobbyorganisationer, den yderste højrefløj, kulturpersonligheder, debattører og store medieinstitutioner, pisker en moralsk panik op, som har alvorlige konsekvenser for transpersoner verden over.I første episode går vi tilbage til bevægelsens historiske rødder i 1970'ernes amerikanske kvindebevægelse. Vi taler om den såkaldte "TERF bibel" og hvilke alvorlige konsekvenser denne bog havde. Vi ser på hvordan der er sket et "rebrand" af bevægelsen som nu kalder sig selv "Gender Critical, ligesom vi sammen med gæsterne afklarer en række centrale begreber omkring køn. Podcastseriens logo får du en forklaring på i 3. afsnit af serien. Så bliv hængendeIndholdsadvarsel: Serien berører transfobi, misogyni, homofobi og racisme, og der bliver læst eksempler på stærkt transfobiske kommentarer op.Gæsterne i dette afsnit er - Laura Mølgaard Tams, programmør, aktivist og driver mediet Killjoy - Emily Gorcenski, data analytiker og anti-fascistisk researcher- Katy Montgomerie, aktivist, musiker og Youtuber - Frederikke Kjærulff Madsen, læge og seksualunderviserVoice acts: Maria B og TelliMusik og Lyddesign: Sara NielsenKilder og referencer:- "TERF hate and Sandy Stone" af Christian Williams i Trans Advocate - “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991)- “Whipping Girl - - A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity” af Julia Serrano, Seal Press, 2016- “Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive”, Julia Serano, Avalon Publishing Group, 2013- “The Trouble with White Women - a counterhistory of Feminism”, Kyla Schuler, Bold Type Books 2021- "Mitchfest" på Advocate.com - The Transsexual Empire, Janice Raymond, 1979, Beacon PressLydklip brugt i første afsnit:- Den næstbedste løsning, DR- Kom med søster hvid, kom med søster sort, DR- Winter Mvt 1 Allegro non molto - John Harrison with the Wichita State University Chamber Players- Original Rags (1900, piano roll) - Scott Joplin- PODCAST: The Transsexual Empire revisited — Janice Raymond on transgenderism, yesterday and todayDu kan støtte følgende initiativer for og af transpersoner i både Danmark og udlandet- Foreningen til Støtte for Transkønnede Børn https://fstb.dk/- Transadvocate, der blandt andet har skrevet artiklen om Sandy Stone, kan støttes her. https://www.patreon.com/transadvocate- Trans Justice Funding Project støtter små græsrodsinitiativer for og ledet af transpersoner i USA. Donér via https://www.transjusticefundingproject.org/- Mermaids UK støtter kønsdiverse børn og deres forældre https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/- Trans Safety Network dokumenter anti-trans dagsordenen i England transsafety.network- Gendered Intelligence: Englands nationale trans-ledede organisation https://genderedintelligence.co.uk/support-us/donate - Scottish Trans Skotlands nationale transrettigheds organisation https://www.scottishtrans.org/support-us/Læs mere om baggrunden for at starte podcasten på Cybernauternes hjemmeside https://cybernauterne.dk/blog/konskrigerne-fra-smal-maerkesag-til-mainstream-kulturkamp/

2021年11月5日，微博出现了 #网曝南京大学一男生偷窥女生上厕所# #南京大学偷窥男被罚400元后释放#等相关热搜，词条实时热度一度上亿。与此同时，另一篇曝光偷窥人正面照片的豆瓣帖子也被广泛转发。到微信推送发出的今天，这次恶性事件本身所引起的舆论震动，已经在校内校外渐渐平息。然而，近一月以来的各方讨论也好，校方最终决定也罢，是足够的了吗？我们认为还不够，所以有了这期播客。即便如此，恐怕依旧还不够；但我们希望，针对这样的事件，大家能够遗忘得缓慢一些。一、到底发生了什么？ （00：00-10：08）警方接案出警的共有两次偷窥事件，偷窥者均为刘某某：10月11日，第一位受害女生报警；到10月25日，受害女生收到“因客观原因无法在法定期限作出处理”的通知。10月26日，第二位受害女生报警，刘某某被警方罚款400元。在10月11日监控所提供的信息上，官方最终通报与女生说法不一致：女生在校园表白墙发帖时表示，当日监控能够清晰辨认刘某某身份，而官方予以否认。那么，10月11日至25日的冷淡处理，到底是由于无法辨认身份还是其他原因所致？11月3日，数学系给出“初步处理意见"，“院系初步处理意见”具体是什么？除了沿用公安机关依据《治安管理处罚法》作出的400元罚款处理外，还有其他来自院系的处罚吗？二、学校为什么会这么处理？ （10：08-18：08）1.学校处理事件的逻辑是什么？为什么高校对偷窥事件的反应趋于一致？ 为什么南大会援引复旦对偷窥事件的警告处罚？ 为什么高校更倾向于更保守、相对不严苛的处罚，而非更严格的处罚。（13:42） 在这种规章制度导向的价值观中，将会出现学生和学校逻辑的背离和不理解（15:21）三、还可以怎么做得更好？ 1.学校将偷窥事件定义为“校园安全问题”，淡化处理女性权益的问题 (18:08) 2.为什么普及着女性主义理论和视角的高校，自己却漠视方圆之内的女性事件？（29:25） 3.南大学生的标语上墙是大字报行为吗？“有大字报那味儿了。”是吗？（34:19） 什么叫做大字报行为？ 为什么南大学生的言论上墙不是大字报行为？ 为什么我们在公共空间的讨论总有大字报嫌疑？本期歌单：1.海朋森-新都人2.P.Murk 陈思江-人们有一口井3.Arcade Fire-Abraham's Daughter4.海朋森-我们这些晶莹剔透的模型5.Roy Orbison -Pretty Woman 参考文献：关于女性理论中交叉性（Intersectionality）的研究：[1]Kimberle Crenshaw. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review.关于行政机构同构化（Isomorphism）倾向的研究[2] Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review.关于校园学生活动的研究：[3] Katherine Soojin Cho. (2020). Responding to Campus Racism: Analyzing Student Activism and Institutional Responses. UCLA.

2021年11月5日，微博出现了 #网曝南京大学一男生偷窥女生上厕所# #南京大学偷窥男被罚400元后释放#等相关热搜，词条实时热度一度上亿。与此同时，另一篇曝光偷窥人正面照片的豆瓣帖子也被广泛转发。到微信推送发出的今天，这次恶性事件本身所引起的舆论震动，已经在校内校外渐渐平息。然而，近一月以来的各方讨论也好，校方最终决定也罢，是足够的了吗？我们认为还不够，所以有了这期播客。即便如此，恐怕依旧还不够；但我们希望，针对这样的事件，大家能够遗忘得缓慢一些。一、到底发生了什么？ （00：00-10：08）警方接案出警的共有两次偷窥事件，偷窥者均为刘某某：10月11日，第一位受害女生报警；到10月25日，受害女生收到“因客观原因无法在法定期限作出处理”的通知。10月26日，第二位受害女生报警，刘某某被警方罚款400元。在10月11日监控所提供的信息上，官方最终通报与女生说法不一致：女生在校园表白墙发帖时表示，当日监控能够清晰辨认刘某某身份，而官方予以否认。那么，10月11日至25日的冷淡处理，到底是由于无法辨认身份还是其他原因所致？11月3日，数学系给出“初步处理意见"，“院系初步处理意见”具体是什么？除了沿用公安机关依据《治安管理处罚法》作出的400元罚款处理外，还有其他来自院系的处罚吗？二、学校为什么会这么处理？ （10：08-18：08）1.学校处理事件的逻辑是什么？为什么高校对偷窥事件的反应趋于一致？ 为什么南大会援引复旦对偷窥事件的警告处罚？ 为什么高校更倾向于更保守、相对不严苛的处罚，而非更严格的处罚。（13:42） 在这种规章制度导向的价值观中，将会出现学生和学校逻辑的背离和不理解（15:21）三、还可以怎么做得更好？ 1.学校将偷窥事件定义为“校园安全问题”，淡化处理女性权益的问题 (18:08) 2.为什么普及着女性主义理论和视角的高校，自己却漠视方圆之内的女性事件？（29:25） 3.南大学生的标语上墙是大字报行为吗？“有大字报那味儿了。”是吗？（34:19） 什么叫做大字报行为？ 为什么南大学生的言论上墙不是大字报行为？ 为什么我们在公共空间的讨论总有大字报嫌疑？本期歌单：1.海朋森-新都人2.P.Murk 陈思江-人们有一口井3.Arcade Fire-Abraham's Daughter4.海朋森-我们这些晶莹剔透的模型5.Roy Orbison -Pretty Woman 参考文献：关于女性理论中交叉性（Intersectionality）的研究：[1]Kimberle Crenshaw. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review.关于行政机构同构化（Isomorphism）倾向的研究[2] Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review.关于校园学生活动的研究：[3] Katherine Soojin Cho. (2020). Responding to Campus Racism: Analyzing Student Activism and Institutional Responses. UCLA.

2021年11月5日，微博出现了 #网曝南京大学一男生偷窥女生上厕所# #南京大学偷窥男被罚400元后释放#等相关热搜，词条实时热度一度上亿。与此同时，另一篇曝光偷窥人正面照片的豆瓣帖子也被广泛转发。到微信推送发出的今天，这次恶性事件本身所引起的舆论震动，已经在校内校外渐渐平息。然而，近一月以来的各方讨论也好，校方最终决定也罢，是足够的了吗？我们认为还不够，所以有了这期播客。即便如此，恐怕依旧还不够；但我们希望，针对这样的事件，大家能够遗忘得缓慢一些。一、到底发生了什么？ （00：00-10：08）警方接案出警的共有两次偷窥事件，偷窥者均为刘某某：10月11日，第一位受害女生报警；到10月25日，受害女生收到“因客观原因无法在法定期限作出处理”的通知。10月26日，第二位受害女生报警，刘某某被警方罚款400元。在10月11日监控所提供的信息上，官方最终通报与女生说法不一致：女生在校园表白墙发帖时表示，当日监控能够清晰辨认刘某某身份，而官方予以否认。那么，10月11日至25日的冷淡处理，到底是由于无法辨认身份还是其他原因所致？11月3日，数学系给出“初步处理意见"，“院系初步处理意见”具体是什么？除了沿用公安机关依据《治安管理处罚法》作出的400元罚款处理外，还有其他来自院系的处罚吗？二、学校为什么会这么处理？ （10：08-18：08）1.学校处理事件的逻辑是什么？为什么高校对偷窥事件的反应趋于一致？ 为什么南大会援引复旦对偷窥事件的警告处罚？ 为什么高校更倾向于更保守、相对不严苛的处罚，而非更严格的处罚。（13:42） 在这种规章制度导向的价值观中，将会出现学生和学校逻辑的背离和不理解（15:21）三、还可以怎么做得更好？ 1.学校将偷窥事件定义为“校园安全问题”，淡化处理女性权益的问题 (18:08) 2.为什么普及着女性主义理论和视角的高校，自己却漠视方圆之内的女性事件？（29:25） 3.南大学生的标语上墙是大字报行为吗？“有大字报那味儿了。”是吗？（34:19） 什么叫做大字报行为？ 为什么南大学生的言论上墙不是大字报行为？ 为什么我们在公共空间的讨论总有大字报嫌疑？本期歌单：1.海朋森-新都人2.P.Murk 陈思江-人们有一口井3.Arcade Fire-Abraham's Daughter4.海朋森-我们这些晶莹剔透的模型5.Roy Orbison -Pretty Woman 参考文献：关于女性理论中交叉性（Intersectionality）的研究：[1]Kimberle Crenshaw. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review.关于行政机构同构化（Isomorphism）倾向的研究[2] Paul J. DiMaggio and Walter W. Powell. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review.关于校园学生活动的研究：[3] Katherine Soojin Cho. (2020). Responding to Campus Racism: Analyzing Student Activism and Institutional Responses. UCLA.

In this episode, Johanna Holtan Co-Convenor of the Race Equality and Anti-Racist Sub-Committee (REAR) and Programme Director, Mastercard Foundation Scholars Program talks to intersectional feminist scholar from the Global South, Dr Radhika Govinda, Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the School of Social and Political Science. Dr Govinda sits on the steering committees for the University's GenderED and RACE.ED networks. She is Associate Director of CRITIQUE, and an active member of the Centre for South Asian Studies. In this episode, she discusses decolonisation as a process of decentring whiteness, which entails unpacking the historical implications of deconstructing knowledge production. For her, the classroom is a key entry point for undertaking such a process in inspiring students to insert dilemmas into their subjectivities. In this way, the classroom is conducive space for exploring discomforts, assumptions, and vulnerabilities. Dr Radhika Govinda's Recommendations: Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. “‘Under Western Eyes' Revisited: Feminist Solidarity through Anticapitalist Struggles.” Signs, vol. 28, no. 2, 2003, pp. 499–535. Hooks, Bell. (1994). Teaching to transgress : education as the practice of freedom. New York: Routledge Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299.

Mehran, your host, has the honor to share with you another immigrant story. My guest today is Ilya Somin who migrated as a young child with his parents from Russia. In this episode, as always we will talk a little about Ilya's migration journey, what foot voting means, and how as an immigrant you can get a better education for your child or have a greater impact on your community. in the end, we will hear about Ilya's opinion on Afghanistan and what he is doing to help Afghan refugees. Link to Khoshhaulam: https://khoshhaulam.com/ Link to vote for Mehran until October 8th: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BRAVARisingStar2021 Link to Ilya's Book: https://www.amazon.com/Free-Move-Migration-Political-Freedom/dp/0190054581 Ilya's Memoire: https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/faculty/Somin_HIASMemoir.pdf Ilya's Biography: ILYA SOMIN is Professor of Law at George Mason University. His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, democratic theory, federalism, and migration rights. He is the author of Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration, and Political Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2020), Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter (Stanford University Press, revised and expanded second edition, 2016), and The Grasping Hand: Kelo v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain (University of Chicago Press, 2015, rev. paperback ed., 2016), coauthor of A Conspiracy Against Obamacare: The Volokh Conspiracy and the Health Care Case (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), and co-editor of Eminent Domain: A Comparative Perspective (Cambridge University Press, 2017). Democracy and Political Ignorance has been translated into Italian and Japanese. Somin's work has appeared in numerous scholarly journals, including the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Critical Review, and others. Somin has also published articles in a variety of popular press outlets, including the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, the New York Times Room for Debate website, CNN, The Atlantic, USA Today, US News and World Report, Newark Star Ledger, South China Morning Post, Legal Times, National Law Journal and Reason. He has been quoted or interviewed by the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, The Economist, the Christian Science Monitor, The Guardian, the Associated Press, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, Reuters, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Al Jazeera, and the Voice of America, among other media. Somin's writings have been cited in decisions by the United States Supreme Court, multiple state supreme courts and lower federal courts, and the Supreme Court of Israel. He has testified on the use of drones for targeted killing in the War on Terror before the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights. In 2009, he testified on property rights issues at the United States Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Somin writes regularly for the popular Volokh Conspiracy law and politics blog, now affiliated with Reason magazine (previously affiliated with the Washington Post from 2014 to 2017). From 2006 to 2013, he served as Co-Editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review, one of the country's top-rated law and economics journals.

Kinship caregivers (primarily grandparents raising their grandchildren) are often functioning as a shadow foster care system. We talk with Josh Gupta-Kagan, a Professor of Law at the University of South Carolina School of Law and author of America's Hidden Foster Care System in the Stanford Law Review, and Karissa Phelps, a Stoneleigh Emerging Leader Fellow at Temple Legal Aid, where she provides legal representation and services to kinship caregivers.In this episode, we cover:In many cases, child protection agencies induce parents to transfer physical custody of their children to kinship caregivers by threatening to place the children in foster care.How often does this happen?Why do you call this the “hidden” foster care system?Generally speaking, don't we consider it best practice for kids to remain with extended family? So why is this a problem? Is it inherently coercive?What are the advantages to encouraging placement with kin before they enter the formal foster care system?What are the risks?If this transfer takes place outside of the system, how long does it last? How can children go home? Who decides?How does this differ from informal kinship care?How does The Family First Prevention Services Act of 2018 contribute to the “hidden foster care system”?Do you see kinship placements increasing?What are child welfare agencies doing to support kinship families? Follow the money: Is it less expensive for agencies to place with kin rather than unrelated foster parents?How is foster care funded?What is the status of kinship navigator programs? How can we best support kinship families?What do you see as the biggest challenges to kinship families? This podcast is produced  by www.CreatingaFamily.org. We are a national non-profit with the mission to strengthen and inspire adoptive, foster & kinship parents and the professionals who support them. Creating a Family brings you the following trauma-informed, expert-based content:Weekly podcastsWeekly articles/blog posts Resource pages on all aspects of family buildingPlease leave us a rating or review RateThisPodcast.com/creatingafamilySupport the show (https://creatingafamily.org/donation/)

In this episode, Emma provides an overview of second wave, radical feminism. What does it mean to be a radical feminist, and is this term still useful today? Listen to find out! Reading list: Nachescu, Voichita. “Radical Feminism and the Nation: History and Space in the Political Imagination of Second-Wave Feminism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 3, no. 1, 2009, pp. 29–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41887617 Leigh Miller, A History of Radical Feminism https://www.sutori.com/story/a-history-of-radical-feminism–Pf5HsUfrBG26boQJdwtLbWUS Kathie Sarachild, Conciousness Raising Groups: A Radical Weapon, https://vrrws.seriousotters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Feminist-Revolution-Consciousness-Raising-A-Radical-Weapon-Kathie-Sarachild.pdf Carol Hanisch, The Personal is Political, https://webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~mserra/AttachedFiles/PersonalPolitical.pdf Gillette, Meg. “Modern American Abortion Narratives and the Century of Silence.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 58, no. 4, 2012, pp. 663–687. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24247022 ***Trigger Warning: This article is explicit, and speaks about sexual violence*** Andrea Dworkin, Prostitution and Male Supremacy, http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MichLawJourI.html Erica West, The Pitfalls of Radical Feminism, https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/radical-feminism-second-wave-class Roz Kaveney, Woman Enough, https://www.advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2014/07/16/woman-enough Audre Lorde, The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House, from the book Sister Outsider, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32951.Sister_Outsider Barry, Kathleen. “The Underground Economic System Of Pimping.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 35, no. 1, 1981, pp. 117–127. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24357006 Barry, Kathleen. “Female Sexual Slavery: Understanding the International Dimensions of Women's Oppression.” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 2, 1981, pp. 44–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/761856 Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 20 Aug. 2021.

In this episode, Emma provides an overview of second wave, radical feminism. What does it mean to be a radical feminist, and is this term still useful today? Listen to find out! Reading list: Nachescu, Voichita. “Radical Feminism and the Nation: History and Space in the Political Imagination of Second-Wave Feminism.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism, vol. 3, no. 1, 2009, pp. 29–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41887617 Leigh Miller, A History of Radical Feminism https://www.sutori.com/story/a-history-of-radical-feminism–Pf5HsUfrBG26boQJdwtLbWUS Kathie Sarachild, Conciousness Raising Groups: A Radical Weapon, https://vrrws.seriousotters.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Feminist-Revolution-Consciousness-Raising-A-Radical-Weapon-Kathie-Sarachild.pdf Carol Hanisch, The Personal is Political, https://webhome.cs.uvic.ca/~mserra/AttachedFiles/PersonalPolitical.pdf Gillette, Meg. “Modern American Abortion Narratives and the Century of Silence.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 58, no. 4, 2012, pp. 663–687. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24247022 ***Trigger Warning: This article is explicit, and speaks about sexual violence*** Andrea Dworkin, Prostitution and Male Supremacy, http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MichLawJourI.html Erica West, The Pitfalls of Radical Feminism, https://jacobinmag.com/2017/07/radical-feminism-second-wave-class Roz Kaveney, Woman Enough, https://www.advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2014/07/16/woman-enough Audre Lorde, The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House, from the book Sister Outsider, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32951.Sister_Outsider Barry, Kathleen. “The Underground Economic System Of Pimping.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 35, no. 1, 1981, pp. 117–127. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/24357006 Barry, Kathleen. “Female Sexual Slavery: Understanding the International Dimensions of Women's Oppression.” Human Rights Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 2, 1981, pp. 44–52. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/761856 Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 20 Aug. 2021.

Inheritance forgery can take many forms, including phony estate planning documents that redirect assets to a scammer and fake deeds that spring the family home from the decedent's estate.  Forgery used to be a crime that could result in the death penalty.  But in the mid-twentieth century, concern about forgery waned.  Based in part on the perception that counterfeit estate plans are rare, several states relaxed the formalities traditionally associated with wills in an effort to avoid technical deficiencies that might cause them to fail.   Has the pendulum swung too far?  In California and elsewhere, inheritance forgery may be more common than many folks assume and perhaps we should find new ways to combat it.  Certainly we should keep forgery risks in mind as we consider statutory innovations like electronic wills created on smartphones.   Professor David Horton is our guest for this episode.  The topic of this podcast, his co-authored piece Inheritance Forgery, appeared in the Duke Law Journal and can be downloaded along with his other articles here.   The podcast begins with a tale about high stakes fraud in rural Kansas.  As reported in an appellate opinion, an elderly widower named Earl Field hired Wanda Oborny to be his bookkeeper.  She forged a codicil (i.e., amendment) to his will and nearly ended up with half of his $20 million estate, to the detriment of a local university.  Justice prevailed (after a lengthy trial and appeal) and Oborny eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud.  Along the way, a murder/suicide took the lives of the two “witnesses” to the codicil.    About Our Guest: David Horton is a Professor of Law at UC Davis. He received his B.A. cum laude from Carleton College in 1997 and his J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2004. At UCLA, he was elected to the Order of the Coif and served as Chief Articles Editor of the UCLA Law Review.  He then practiced at Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and clerked for the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.Horton teaches and writes in the areas of wills and trusts, arbitration law, and contracts.  His work has won several national awards and appeared in the Yale Law Journal, Stanford Law Review, N.Y.U. Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, California Law Review, among many other journals. About Our Host:Jeffrey Galvin is a partner at Downey Brand LLP based in Sacramento.  He litigates trust and estate cases across Northern California.  He created and edited the blog Trust on Trial.  He is a member of the Executive Committee of the Trusts and Estates Section of the California Lawyers Association.  This is his first foray into podcasting. Produced by: Foley Marra Studios

In this mini episode, Emma discusses the controversial topic of feminism's “waves”. Are these a helpful framing tool, or a reductive method of remembering history? Reading List: Laughlin, Kathleen A., et al. “Is It Time to Jump Ship? Historians Rethink the Waves Metaphor.” Feminist Formations, vol. 22, no. 1, 2010, pp. 76–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40835345. Accessed 14 July 2021. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 14 July 2021. Spade, Dean, and Craig Willse. “Sex, Gender, and War in an Age of Multicultural Imperialism.” QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 5–29. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/qed.1.1.0005. Accessed 14 July 2021. DRISKILL, QWO-LI. “Stolen From Our Bodies: First Nations Two-Spirits/Queers and the Journey to a Sovereign Erotic.” Studies in American Indian Literatures, vol. 16, no. 2, 2004, pp. 50–64. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20739500. Accessed 14 July 2021. Lorde, Audre. “‘THE MASTER'S TOOLS WILL NEVER DISMANTLE THE MASTER'S HOUSE.'” Feminist Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, edited by Reina Lewis and Sara Mills, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2003, pp. 25–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvxcr9q0.5. Accessed 14 July 2021. Hooks, Bell. “Feminism and Militarism: A Comment.” Women's Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3/4, 1995, pp. 58–64. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40003500. Accessed 14 July 2021.

In this mini episode, Emma discusses the controversial topic of feminism's “waves”. Are these a helpful framing tool, or a reductive method of remembering history? Reading List: Laughlin, Kathleen A., et al. “Is It Time to Jump Ship? Historians Rethink the Waves Metaphor.” Feminist Formations, vol. 22, no. 1, 2010, pp. 76–135. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40835345. Accessed 14 July 2021. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 14 July 2021. Spade, Dean, and Craig Willse. “Sex, Gender, and War in an Age of Multicultural Imperialism.” QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, pp. 5–29. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/qed.1.1.0005. Accessed 14 July 2021. DRISKILL, QWO-LI. “Stolen From Our Bodies: First Nations Two-Spirits/Queers and the Journey to a Sovereign Erotic.” Studies in American Indian Literatures, vol. 16, no. 2, 2004, pp. 50–64. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20739500. Accessed 14 July 2021. Lorde, Audre. “‘THE MASTER'S TOOLS WILL NEVER DISMANTLE THE MASTER'S HOUSE.'” Feminist Postcolonial Theory: A Reader, edited by Reina Lewis and Sara Mills, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, 2003, pp. 25–28. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctvxcr9q0.5. Accessed 14 July 2021. Hooks, Bell. “Feminism and Militarism: A Comment.” Women's Studies Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3/4, 1995, pp. 58–64. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40003500. Accessed 14 July 2021.

Virginia is for lovers, so they say, but how is it that the first colonial settlement has been so instrumental, nay, influential in capital punishment? The commonwealth of Virginia is known for its fall colors, beautiful skylines, and developing a well oiled machine that executes people faster and with greater frequency than any other state. This week, we do a deep dive into the states rich history of executions, and talk about Virginia's recent abolishment of the death penalty. Could this bold act, the first in the south, have greater implications for the way the death penalty is applied at the national level? You'll have to listen to find out! Guest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is an elected member of the American Law Institute, and received the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award in 2006. She is a former prosecutor and an Army veteran.Support the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/faithpolitics)

Curious about the death penalty? The week, The Criminology Academy hosts Professor Michael Radelet from the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder. We chat with Mike about his career reflections and development, as well as his ground-breaking experience and work on the death penalty. Mike has published in journals such as Stanford Law Review, Annual Review of Sociology, American Sociology Review, and the Law and Society Review. Music by: www.bensound.com

This is a continuation of Episode 501's exploration of a rather arcane bit of legal jurisprudence that has somehow become the target du jour of the right wing, from Matt Gaetz to Newsmax to... well, Matt Gaetz again. That's right, it's an explanation of what critical race theory actually is, and whether it should be banned. (Hint: no) In this episode, you'll learn more about the definitely NOT Marxist postmodern critique of language and legal textbooks, including an in-depth discussion of a case you probably have never heard of -- Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823). And if you have heard of the case, then a) you're probably a lawyer or law student, and b) you should thank a critical legal studies theorist! We'll also get in depth with two of the founders of the CRT movement, Mari Matsuda and Kimberle Crenshaw. Learn what their unique contributions to legal scholarship were and are, and decide for yourself whether this is too dangerous for grad students to even read. Finally, we'll delve back into the one-man astroturf unit that is Christopher F. Rufo and learn how he's deliberately misleading everyone about what CRT is in order to stoke a moral panic. This is an episode you don't want to miss & might want to share even with your Uncle Frank! Finally, we do an Andrew Was Wrong on Arrow's Theorem as math professors rise up and storm our studio. Links We first discussed CRT in Episode 501; go check that out if you haven't yet. Andrew definitively stated that he was not a CRT theorist & believed there are right answers in the law in Episode 477 critiquing originalism. Florida's latest law is HB 233 on "intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity," which kind of contradicts the whole banning CRT thing. Check out Richard Delgado & Jean Stefancic's "Rodrigo's Reappraisal" (2021). You can read Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) for yourself. The Rufo timeline we mentioned was published in the Wall Street Journal, and you can check out the text of Trump's executive order here. You can also read his garbage article in the NY Post... you know what? I'm not going to link that. He's terrible. You should definitely read Mari Matsuda's Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story (1989) and Kimberle Crenshaw's Mapping the Margins:  Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color from the 1991 Stanford Law Review. Finally, I would also recommend reading Aya Gruber's "Against Carceral Feminism" (2021). Appearances None! Have us on! -Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law –Subscribe to the YouTube Channel and share our videos! -Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs -Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/, and don't forget the OA Facebook Community! -For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki -And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com!

The 2020 election revealed the deep fractures in U.S. democracy and its electoral system. Many were already there, but this past election truly pushed our voting system to its limits.  “Many of the familiar procedures for translating the people’s will into the choice of a president depend on norms of behavior, not laws,” guest Rick Hasen put it—evident from the significant efforts undertaken to undermine and interfere with the results of the election. Part of this dysfunction played out in the Senate, where the institution itself protects arcane rules and undemocratic processes. Is the Senate truly representative? Is the electoral system fair? Is it time to eliminate the electoral college? What other electoral reforms should we be considering? What does contemporary voter suppression look like?  One of the important Senate rules at issue today is the filibuster, which has been weaponized at various times to defeat important legislation. What purpose does the filibuster serve? Is it a barrier to real progress?  Helping us to sort out these questions and more are very special guests:Rick Hasen, chancellor’s professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine and a nationally recognized expert in election law and campaign finance regulation. He is co-author of leading casebooks in election law and remedies, and served in 2020 as a CNN election law analyst. He has authored over 100 articles on election law issues, published in numerous journals including the Harvard Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Supreme Court Review. Barbara R. Arnwine, president and founder of the Transformative Justice Coalition. She also served as the executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law from 1989 until 2015. Arnwine is internationally renowned for contributions on critical justice issues, including the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the 2006 reauthorization of provisions of the Voting Rights Act. She also serves as co-chair and facilitator of the National Commission for Voter Justice, the Millennial Votes Matters Convenings and the Voting Rights Alliance. She is the radio host of Igniting Change and is a regular presence in the national media.Cynthia Richie Terrell, founder and executive director of RepresentWomen (formerly Representation2020), a regular Ms. contributor and an outspoken advocate for rules and systems reforms to advance women’s representation and leadership in the United States. Terrell has been published in numerous print journals; appeared on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal; and has participated in numerous radio shows and panel discussions on the topics of electoral reform and structural strategies to elect more women.  Rate and review “On the Issues with Michele Goodwin" to let us know what you think of the show! Let’s show the power of independent feminist media.Check out this episode’s landing page at MsMagazine.com for a full transcript, links to articles referenced in this episode, further reading and ways to take action.Tips, suggestions, pitches? Get in touch with us at ontheissues@msmagazine.com. Support the show (http://msmagazine.com)

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 25 In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay continues his abridged reading of Kimberlé Crenshaw's famous (or infamous) paper, "Mapping the Margins," which appeared in the Stanford Law Review in 1991. While not the birthplace of intersectionality, this paper is the first full-throated appeal for its application, not just in the world but also in the movements from which it was born: radical feminism and black liberationism. In part 1 of this series, James read the introduction to the paper, wherein he claims the Woke One Ring was forged to form one model of systemic oppression to rule them all: intersectionality, by which all the radical and civil rights movements were ensnared and brought under the dominion of postmodern neo-Marxist thought. Here, in part 2, James reads through the conclusion of "Mapping the Margins" and illustrates exactly how Crenshaw's ideas will achieve the complete subordination and redirection of all leftist, left-wing, and civil-rights thought. This episode of the New Discourses podcast is the second part of a two-part series reading an abridged version of Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins." You can find Part 1 here: https://newdiscourses.com/2021/03/forging-woke-one-ring-kimberle-crenshaws-mapping-margins/ Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.

The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Episode 24 "Mapping the Margins," by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is an academic law paper that changed the world (abridged pdf here). It was published in the Stanford Law Review in 1991 and makes the case for putting intersectionality into all cultural analysis. It is also more or less unambiguously the birthplace of Wokeness, as in this paper, Crenshaw indicates explicitly that, to her, intersectionality is "a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory," that is, as Jordan Peterson has it, postmodern neo-Marxism. Crenshaw is no minor figure, by the way. She is the creator of intersectionality as well as the co-creator (with her mentor Derrick Bell) and namer of Critical Race Theory. This paper is, in all likelihood, by far her most influential. In this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, James Lindsay reads through the introduction to "Mapping the Margins" and offers his commentary on the paper and its role as the birthplace (though not gestation) of the Woke movement and, as he and Helen Pluckrose named it in Cynical Theories, applied postmodernism. It is in this paper that intersectionality became the Woke One Ring, which would bring all of the other aspects of identity politics and Critical Theory under the dominion of one mode of analysis from which they cannot deviate. Join him as he reads through the text of the paper and explains what Crenshaw means, where she is coming from, and where she intends for this idea to go. This episode of the New Discourses podcast is the first part of a two-part series reading an abridged version of Crenshaw's "Mapping the Margins." Support New Discourses: paypal.me/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com/support patreon.com/newdiscourses subscribestar.com/newdiscourses youtube.com/channel/UC9K5PLkj0N_b9JTPdSRwPkg/join Website: https://newdiscourses.com Follow: facebook.com/newdiscourses twitter.com/NewDiscourses instagram.com/newdiscourses newdiscourses.locals.com pinterest.com/newdiscourses linkedin.com/company/newdiscourses minds.com/newdiscourses reddit.com/r/NewDiscourses Podcast: @newdiscourses podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-…es/id1499880546 bit.ly/NDGooglePodcasts open.spotify.com/show/0HfzDaXI5L4LnJQStFWgZp stitcher.com/podcast/new-discourses © 2021 New Discourses. All rights reserved.

March for Life Series: This is a four-part series that looks at the value of life through the various societal lenses of faith and politics. If you were to ask your friends what countries are in the top 10 countries that execute their citizens, you would probably get very similar responses from each person you ask, and almost certainly America would not be one of them. Because when people think about countries that sponsor state executions, they rarely think about America. Instead,  most people generally consider countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to be leading the way, and they're correct. But what would surprise you, as it did Will and Josh, is that America ranks in the top 10 (actually number six, just above Pakistan). On this week's episode, we continue our March for Life series and speak with one of the leading constitutional voices on capital punishment, Professor Corinna Lain. Her ability to take a very complex, and controversial, issue and translate it into an easy-to-understand concept will have you think critically about the efficacy of this form of criminal justice. It will be impossible to walk away from this discussion without learning something, and we hope you enjoy our conversation! Read some of her publications:Death Row, Calls for Indifference, and Redemption of the SoulMadison and the Mentally Ill: The Death Penalty for the Weak, Not the WorstDeath Penalty Drugs and the International Moral MarketplaceGuest Bio:Professor Corinna Barrett Lain is a constitutional law scholar who writes about the influence of extralegal norms on Supreme Court decisionmaking, with a particular focus on the field of capital punishment. Her scholarship, which often uses the lens of legal history, has appeared in the Stanford Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Duke Law Journal, UCLA Law Review, and Georgetown Law Journal, among other venues. Professor Lain is an elected member of the American Law Institute and received the University of Richmond's Distinguished Educator Award in 2006. She is a former prosecutor and an Army veteran.For a full list of Corinna's scholarly articles click on this linkSupport the show (https://www.buymeacoffee.com/faithpolitics)

"*And Black Men" is a series of short podcast episodes that discuss intersectionality and the history of Black Feminism with black men. Sources: Arulo. “Atop a Mustang.” Mixkit, 2020, mixkit.co/free-stock-music/acoustic/. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020. Nash, Jennifer Christine. Black Feminism Reimagined: after Intersectionality. Duke University Press, 2019. Cooper, Brittney C. Eloquent Rage: a Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. Picador, 2019. Marriott, David. On Black Men. 2000 Manne, Kate. Down Girl. Penguin Books Ltd, 2019.

"*And Black Men" is a short series of podcast episodes that discuss intersectionality and the history of Black Feminism with black men. Sources: Arulo. “Atop a Mustang.” Mixkit, 2020, mixkit.co/free-stock-music/acoustic/. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020. Nash, Jennifer Christine. Black Feminism Reimagined: after Intersectionality. Duke University Press, 2019. Cooper, Brittney C. Eloquent Rage: a Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. Picador, 2019. Marriott, David. On Black Men. 2000 Manne, Kate. Down Girl. Penguin Books Ltd, 2019.

"*And Black Men" is a series of short podcast episodes that discuss intersectionality and the history of Black Feminism with black men. Sources: Arulo. “Atop a Mustang.” Mixkit, 2020, mixkit.co/free-stock-music/acoustic/. Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1229039. Accessed 10 Dec. 2020. Nash, Jennifer Christine. Black Feminism Reimagined: after Intersectionality. Duke University Press, 2019. Cooper, Brittney C. Eloquent Rage: a Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower. Picador, 2019. Marriott, David. On Black Men. 2000 Manne, Kate. Down Girl. Penguin Books Ltd, 2019.