Daniel Watts, free speech lawyer

I've seen some pundits expressing shock that Judge Barrett adheres to originalism, the judicial philosophy that the meaning of the law doesn't change over time. Consider the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." People who misunderstand originalists would say that under originalism, this doesn't protect Buzzfeed saying stuff on the internet because the internet didn't exist when the nation's founders wrote this. "Sp...eech" couldn't have mean YouTube videos, and press couldn't have meant Buzzfeed because the founders never thought of those things. But that's not originalism. Originalism asks, "What was the original public meaning of the phrase 'freedom of speech?'" The answer isn't a list of objects or methods of speaking. When we consider the meaning of words, we don't think in terms of lists of objects. If I ask for the meaning of the word dog, the answer isn't "Labradors, dachshunds, and arguably poodles," the answer is "a domesticated canine," which encompasses many dogs - including dogs not yet invented. The original public meaning of "speech" meant "an act meant to communicate a message." It didn't mean "standing on a box in the town square and shouting, writing a letter to one's mother, and posting bulletins." Is uploading a video to YouTube a communicative act? Of course. Is Buzzfeed a member of the "press?" Of course, because they're a publication published periodically that reports on current events, which is how "press" was understood at the time of the founding. You can say originalism is a bad idea because it makes it harder for judges to rewrite laws that they personally believe should be changed - and many people do believe that. But you shouldn't say it's bad because it doesn't account for society changing - it most certainly does.

"UCSD will pay $150,000 in attorney fees and provide $12,500 in funding for The Koala. The settlement also states that the Associated Students of the University of California, San Diego agrees that The Koala’s status as a print media organization does not preclude it from receiving funding." Nice work, Ryan Darby and David Loy. Correction: UCSD is paying more than $150k in fees, not $15k. The Times of San Diego got their facts wrong. Here's the ACLU's press release: https://www.aclusandiego.org/aclu-ucsd-reach-settlement-in/

"Free Press has filed an emergency petition requesting an investigation into broadcasters that have aired the President's statements and press conferences regarding the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). The Petition claims that the President made false statements, and which allegedly have caused or will cause substantial public harm. We deny Free Press's petition. It seeks remedies that would dangerously curtail the freedom of the press embodied in the First Amendment. It is a b...razen attempt to pressure broadcasters to squelch their coverage of a President that Free Press dislikes. Free Press asserts that the Commission "has a duty to rein in broadcasters that seed confusion with lies and disinformation." But the Commission does notand cannot and will notact as a self-appointed, free-roving arbiter of truth in journalism."

This is nonsense. Rhetorical hyperbole and opinion are constitutionally protected speech and cannot form the basis of a defamation claim. Gabbard is out of her mind. ::Waits for Gabbard to sue him:: https://nypost.com//tulsi-gabbard-sues-hillary-clinton-fo/

"While some might prefer that faculty and students speak only in sober, considered tones, freedom of expression embraces the right to criticize public men and measuresand that means not only informed and responsible criticism, but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation. It certainly embraces a right to criticize our President."

This is how a public university is supposed to respond when they're confronted with their employees or students saying bad things. "The First Amendment is strong medicine, and works both ways. All of us are free to condemn views that we find reprehensible, and to do so as vehemently and publicly as Professor Rasmusen expresses his views. We are free to avoid his classes, and demand that the university ensure that he does not, or has not, acted on those views in ways that viol...ate either the federal and state civil rights laws or IU’s nondiscrimination policies. I condemn, in the strongest terms, Professor Rasmusen’s views on race, gender, and sexuality, and I think others should condemn them. But my strong disagreement with his viewsindeed, the fact that I find them loathsomeis not a reason for Indiana University to violate the Constitution of the United States." See more