Here is a round-up of the latest from the Battle for the Constitution: a special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with The Atlantic.
Trump’s Warped Definition of Free Speech
By Adam Serwer, Staff Writer, The Atlantic
Adam Serwer says that Donald Trump’s criticism of Twitter and his Executive Order attempting to limit Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act—which states that online platforms cannot be held liable for the content users post on it—are part of his attempt to bring media companies into an authoritarian infrastructure that amplifies his message and doesn’t criticize it.
The Utter Incoherence of Trump’s Battle With Twitter
By Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law
Mary Anne Franks writes that Donald Trump’s Executive Order about Section 230 is not grounded in actual legal doctrine, misunderstands the First Amendment, and does not address the actual issue of the Section—which is that online platforms do not have to take down genuinely problematic content, such as harassment by stalkers.
What Norma McCorvey Believed Matters
By Mary Ziegler, Stearns Weaver Miller Professor, Florida State University College of Law
Mary Ziegler argues that the recent revelation that Norma McCorvey—the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade—had been paid to recant her support for abortion rights and campaign against them is important because her story has become a symbol at the heart of anti-abortion advocacy.
First Amendment Rights—If You Agree With the President
By Nora Benavidez, Director of U.S. Free Expression Programs, PEN America
Nora Benavidez discusses a recent study by PEN America, which found that since Donald Trump’s election bills criminalizing demonstrations have exponentially increased in state houses, many have become law, and most are targeted at groups the legislature disfavors.
Trump’s Grotesque Violation of the First Amendment
By Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law
Garrett Epps writes that the violent removal of peaceful protestors at Lafayette Square was a grave violation of the First Amendment and that Americans cannot be stripped of their right to assemble just because some assembly has been violent.
Trump’s Words Are Not Meaningless Ramblings
By Jane Chong, Lawyer, Williams & Connolly
Jane Chong contends that Donald Trump’s words cannot be dismissed as ramblings without legal or policy significance—as President, he helps say what the law is, even if the courts ultimately get the last word.
How to Actually Fix America’s Police
By Seth W. Stoughton, Associate Professor of Law, University of South Carolina School of Law; Jeffrey J. Noble, Former Deputy Chief of Police, Irvine Police Department; Geoffrey P. Alpert, Criminology Professor, University of South Carolina
Seth W. Stoughton, Jeffrey J. Noble, and Geoffrey P. Alpert lay out a blueprint for what the federal government, state legislatures, and local agencies can do to fix America’s police.
