"Civil Liberties in an Epidemic" Zoomcast

My colleague Prof. John Villasenor interviewed me on this subject Friday for the UCLA Law Institute for Technlogoy, Law, and Policy series:

You can also get the audio and the transcript; hope you find it interesting.

Comments

[Lawification]

1) How can an (otherwise authorized) order that is justified by the need to contain the spread of contagious disease be narrowly tailored if it restricts the activities of those who have gained immunity?

2) What about those who tested negative?

3) What about those who have self-isolated without human contact for 14 days?

4) What about a population of people that we can show, to a reasonable degree of certainty, present virtually zero risk of transmission?

5) What about a population of people that we can show, to a reasonable degree of certainty, present virtually zero risk of transmission to vulnerable populations?

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

What we have here are two lawyers who are employed by the government talking about limits on their employers.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Perhaps the Professor would comment on the latest Facebook issue, where they are actively suppressing protests about the lockdown orders? You know, because the government says the protests should be illegal.

[Dr. Ed]

Allegedly colluding with them -- at what point are they an agent of the state and hence bound by the 1st Amendment?

https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/21/facebook-isnt-actually-colluding-with-state-governments-but-its-still-removing-protest-posts/

[QuantumBoxCat]

I see what this is. I click on the video, turn the sound up so I can hear, and then wam! I got Volokh dropping racial epithets (sorry, """"racial epithets"""") through my speakers, and my neighbors think I've gone full #maga.

Nice try.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I think if Prof Volokh was going to rickroll ya, he'd do it proper.

[Sam]

"We don't know. Some of us are unloaded, some of us are not
infectious, but some of us might be. And we don't know that we are, and we are capable of causing this great damage to others."

And that is the fatal flaw in your argument. You are using ignorance to justify government usurping rights. Just as the presumption of innocence prevails in crim law, so too in health law: an individual is presumed healthy unless the government can prove otherwise.

What you're advocating is the collectivist tactics employed by the likes of the French Revolution's "Committee of Public Safety." Grant that premise, and what follows is Madame Guillotine -- or the internment of an entire populace.

[Lawification]

Truly. I am at a loss to explain his position.

[eyeung]

Prof. Volokh: I think you mistakenly referred to Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco (1967) as Camara v. Superior Court at 7:03. Also, your description of the case's outcome does not seem to be correct. Camara established that a resident COULD deny entry to a building inspector who did not have a warrant. You may have been thinking of Frank v. Maryland (1959), which was, in fact, overruled by Camara.