Exciting Free Speech Event at the Scalia Law School Next Wednesday, Nov. 14

Join us to see Eugene Volokh, Nadine Strossen, and moderator Brad Smith discuss the Emerging Issues in Free Speech

Volokh Conspiracy readers are invited to a conversation with two renowned First Amendment experts, the VC's own Eugene Volokh and Nadine Strossen (former president of the ACLU). They will discuss the future of free speech in the United States. The conversation will be moderated by Bradley A. Smith, founder and Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech, and former Chairman of the Federal Elections Committee. The conversation will be immediately followed by a reception to celebrate the launch of Scalia Law's Free Speech Clinic, a project of our Liberty & Law Center.

The event will be held on Wednesday, November 14 at 4 pm. Note that the Federalist Society annual conference starts the next day in DC, and that Scalia Law is only three miles or so from the conference hotel. So if you plan to or are thinking about getting to town early, you now have an additional incentive to do so.

If you'd like to attend, please register here.

Comments

[y81]

Wouldn't it be more interesting to have some opponents of free speech in the conversation? Why not invite James Wagner (former Emory president) or Michael Lovell (president of Marquette)? Although most university presidents don't exactly shine in intellectual competitions, I suppose.

[Eddy]

Invite Roger L'Estrange? Now, there's a censor who was willing to argue with you if he couldn't shut you up.

[Michael Masinter]

For a conservative who questions the contemporary broad construction of the freedom of speech, try Hadley Arkes.

[Michael Masinter]

Hadley Arkes ranks high among conservatives who argue for a much narrower construction of the freedom of speech.

[Alan Vanneman]

Yes, he does, but it's too bad that Justice Scalia is dead, because he would have made the perfect candidate.

[Michael Masinter]

Arkes and Justice Scalia disagreed over a number of free speech issues.

[Alan Vanneman]

Uh, my point was, the "Justice Scalia Free Speech Clinic" is likely to turn away a lot of customers.

[Eddy]

I think I'll push the bounds of free expression right now.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Sounds like a conservative school's conservative clinic has produced a nicely balanced program for a conservative audience, with two right-wingers and a single representative of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

It always takes at least two conservatives to keep pace with one Nadine Strossen. This should be a good program.

[Krayt]

===and a single representative of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.===

What does this mean in your context of two others right wingers?

Which is the coded description of someone who favors censorship?

And when has the "mainstream" ever been remotely full-bore freedom of speech?

[Krayt]

===and a single representative of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.===

What does this mean in your context of two others right wingers?

Which is the coded description of someone who favors censorship?

And when has the "mainstream" ever been remotely full-bore freedom of speech?

[David Bernstein]

"Arthur Kirkland argues that free speech is a conservative issue."

[Brett Bellmore]

Even Artie can't deny that, these days.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How does 'it takes two right-wingers to keep up with a single mainstreamer on free speech' become 'free speech is a conservative issue?'

[Per Son]

Why sit around and blast what these folks may say? I heard Prof. Bernstein speak during a debate/discussion in 2001 at Capital University. He sounded intelligent then, and I am sure he does now. I disagreed with him then, as I do now. But his participation in the debate was incredibly important as the professor's went through the issues.