Call for Papers: Free Speech and Civil and Social Progress

Request for Paper Proposals
Snapshot:
Voices for Liberty, an initiative of the Liberty & Law Center at the Antonin Scalia Law School, seeks to examine the ways in which free speech propels civil and social progress. Authors are invited to submit proposals for original articles that will ultimately appear in academic journals and explore the role free speech plays in advancing civil rights movements, especially for marginalized or underrepresented groups.
PRIORITY DEADLINE of August 15th 2023, 5:00 ET for full consideration, with review on a rolling basis through September 8th.
All proposals should include a summary of issues to be addressed, the proposed methodology, and feasibility of having a completed draft by June 2024, with final submission by September 2024. Selection includes participation in a series of support and writing events. Full application details follow.
Full Details:
What role has freedom of speech played when it comes to the legal and social progress of groups that have been historically disadvantaged and/or socially marginalized? In the current public debate, some view freedom of speech as detrimental to minority groups, while others champion it as a necessary condition for protecting underrepresented voices. The former view is more often espoused in both the academy and the popular press. As a result, freedom of speech is frequently seen as a countervailing force in tension with civil rights. But is it?
Voices for Liberty aims to:
• Highlight and focus attention on important contributions to the welfare of minority and underrepresented groups made by the ability to speak throughout history;
• Analyze the effects of restricting speech;
• Assess the argument that limiting speech will help minority groups achieve greater equality; and
• Share evidence of the impact of robust speech protections on current and future civil rights movements.
Original scholarship of specific interest includes, but is not limited to:
• A historical examination of the relationship between social progress on minority rights and concerns and freedom of speech for groups and movements such as (but not limited to) abolition, women's suffrage, women's liberation, religious minorities, the Civil Rights Movement and LGBTQ rights.
• The role free speech plays in advancing the causes of contemporary social movements such as Black Lives Matter, transgender rights, the MeToo movement, etc.
• The role of free speech in making possible new and future civil rights movements.
• The impacts of speech regulation, including hate speech provisions, on civil rights movements and underrepresented groups.
• The impacts of social media and technology on the relationship between civil rights of minority and underrepresented groups and free speech.

Author Requirements:
Snapshot (details below):
Rough Draft and Research Roundtable
June 2024
Paper published on SSRN
September 2024
Panel Discussion
Fall 2024
Paper Published or Placement Secured
April 2025
Op-Ed, Webinar(s), etc.
September 2024-April 2025
1. Research Roundtable, Antonin Scalia School of Law, Arlington, VA (June 2024, Date TBD)
The Initiative will host a research roundtable for rough drafts of papers, which will bring together scholars and experts to provide feedback on drafts prior to completion. Authors will receive expert feedback to improve their final product. The Liberty & Law Center shall pay for reasonable travel costs to attend the roundtable.
2. Publication of Working Draft on SSRN (September 2024)
Authors are expected to revise their paper based on feedback from the Research Roundtable and have a working draft suitable for publication on SSRN by September 1, 2024. Papers will also be housed on the Initiative's and Center's website.
3. Voices for Liberty Panel (Fall 2024, Date TBD)
Authors will be expected to present their papers at a public panel to be held in the Washington, D.C. region. The Liberty & Law Center shall pay for reasonable travel costs to attend the panel.
4. Paper Published or Placement Secured in an Academic Journal (April 2025)
Authors are responsible for completing papers by September 2024 and publishing or securing placement in a law review or academic journal by April 2025. The Liberty & Law Center may arrange to have the papers published in a symposium issue of a law journal.
5. Op-Ed, Webinars, and Other Media (Sept. 2024-Apr. 2025)
Authors will produce at least one op-ed summarizing their work and be prepared to discuss their work in public forums.
​
Application Process and Selection Criteria:
Priority deadline of August 15th 2023, 5:00 ET for full consideration, with review on a rolling basis through September 8th.
To submit a paper proposal for Voices for Liberty, please email your application to [e-mail] as a single Word doc or PDF. All proposals are treated confidentially. Application must include all of the following:
• First and last name, position title, email, organization, and a brief bio.
• A summary of the issue to be addressed, the proposed methodology, and the feasibility of a completed draft by June 2024 and final submission by September 2024.
• Citizenship status (confirmation of current U.S. citizenship or current visa status). Please note that there is a difference in the honorarium payment process and travel processing for authors without U.S. citizenship; this will vary based on the individual's visa status.
• Notice that applicant has checked with their university or employer before applying to ensure they are cleared to participate in the full program and that their university or employer understands the program's requirements.
Please note, accepted applicants will be required to sign an agreement confirming they understand the program requirements and payment details.
The Liberty & Law Center will offer an honorarium to paper authors during the writing process and once papers are placed for publication. Precise amount will depend on selection and final funding, at a minimum of $5,000.
Successful paper proposals will address any issue(s) described above (or those adjacent); stem from the author's expertise; relay a rigorous, knowledgeable, and manageable approach suitable for a law review or academic journal article; and follow the stated submission process.
Questions? Email [e-mail].

Comments

[Ed Grinberg]

What role has freedom of speech played when it comes to the legal and social progress of groups that have been historically disadvantaged and/or socially marginalized? In the current public debate, some view freedom of speech as detrimental to minority groups, while others champion it as a necessary condition for protecting underrepresented voices. The former view is more often espoused in both the academy and the popular press. As a result, freedom of speech is frequently seen as a countervailing force in tension with civil rights. But is it?

• In 2020, American Jewish Committee asked Congress to "designat[e]...white supremacist groups as terrorist organizations, which will mandate social media companies to remove their content and severely limit white supremacists’ ability to recruit online."
  https://www.ajc.org/news/ajc-presents-recommendations-to-inter-parliamentary-task-force-on-online-antisemitism
• "Jews know what it means to be silenced and must become the bulwark against a culture of censoriousness and censorship. Jews must defend the right to say the most distasteful, abhorrent, and even antisemitic things — while at the same time making the most persuasive arguments against those views." (source)

I think AJC is dead-wrong, for the reasons well stated by Ms. Paresky.

[Ed Grinberg]

If Congress designates the White Supremacist Committee as a "terrorist organization" today, what's to stop it from so designating the American Jewish Committee tomorrow? I'm sure you can find plenty of people -- including in Congress! -- who'll tell you all about the nefarious Jewish conspiracy.

[David Nieporent]

Well, AJC is definitionally wrong; "designating" an organization as terrorist is not a thing, domestically, and would not mandate social media companies to remove their content. (Foreign organizations can be designated as terrorist organizations, which ha the effect of severely limiting their legal fundraising and recruiting. But "domestic terrorist" is not a legal term; it's just a descriptor.)

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wouldn't there be some Constitutional issues if a domestic organization were to be declared a "terrorist organization", with the legal implications of such a designation?

I'm not even sure about the laws criminalizing donations to foreign "terrorist organizations", but as to domestic ones, it's not only the First Amendment but also the Due Process clauses. If an organization has been criminally convicted after trial, that's one thing -- but a Presidential fiat is something else entirely.

[David Bernstein]

You need to distinguish between serious proposals, and proposals that sound good when you are sending out fundriasing letters.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I respectfully disagree -- what you say in your fundraising letters is what you think your base wants to hear -- and what they (and you) actually *would* do if you *could.*

Or, as I often say, "exactly what part of 'Kill the Jews' do American Jews not understand?" I'm inclined to believe that folks saying that actually mean it...

[Dr. Ed 2]

"The role free speech plays in advancing the causes of contemporary social movements such as Black Lives Matter, transgender rights, the MeToo movement, etc."

I would argue that free speech no longer exists in this country (only mob speech) and these movements are clear evidence of my point.

For example, while everyone knows who Derek Chauvin is, few know who Mohammed Noor is -- a Black officer who shot a White woman for absolutely no good reason, something that would have been covered up but for diplomatic pressure from the Australian government (she was an Australian citizen).

No one can mention the fact that the Minneapolis Police Department is truly screwed up in multiple dimensions or that the
officers were doing what they were taught to do, or that the autopsy report on George Floyd indicate that he essentially was a dead man walking anyway. Or cite statistics ranging from our current 76% illegitimate Black birth rate to how very rare police shootings are, to the awful carnage in the Black community, perpetrated by other Black males.

As to transgender "rights" -- which has gone far beyond tolerance -- free speech would enable one to argue that the DSM IV-IR was right and they are actually mentally ill. That's what true free speech would permit.

Likewise, true free speech would enable one to compare the "me too" movement to the Danvers (not Salem) Witchcraft hysteria of 1691-93.

NB: My point is not that I believe these opinions, only that true free speech would permit them to be freely expressed. What we have now is mob-permitted speech, where you have free speech only with the implicit (or explicit) threat of mob violence behind you, and that's what led to Hitler.

[hoppy025]

Mohammed Noor was a semi-retarded Somali refugee. Somalians have Muslim beliefs and black genes. It's no wonder they are the way they are.

[Nige]

'Likewise, true free speech would enable one to compare the “me too” movement to the Danvers (not Salem) Witchcraft hysteria of 1691-93.'

It would allow you to say stupid things like this, not enable you, nor highlight you, nor protect you from criticism and even opprobium and general revulsion and marginalisation through rejection.

'Or cite statistics ranging from our current 76% illegitimate Black birth rate to how very rare police shootings are, to the awful carnage in the Black community, perpetrated by other Black males.'

You're confusing the fact that these statistics are freely available for study and discussion, with the general revulsion met by racists when they deploy these statistics, or anything else, in support of their racism.

'free speech would enable one to argue that the DSM IV-IR was right and they are actually mentally ill'

Free speech means that anyone making such a claim can be dismissed as stupid, ignorant, bigoted or any combination of the three by other people who are not those things. Respect for your freedom of speech does not ensure respect for you or your actual speech.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A true (small 'l') liberal would make the distinction between me and my speech. A true liberal would believe that my personhood was more important than your dislike of my views.

"While I disagree with everything you may have to say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Nige]

You seem to be under the impression that it's for you I'd need to fight to defend free speech, as opposed to against.

[F.D. Wolf]

From Socrates to Galileo to the Scopes monkey trial, there are countless episodes in human history in which the purveyors of new, unorthodox ideas have been brought into conflict with authorities who would suppress those ideas as "dangerous". You would be hard-pressed to find many of these episodes in which the verdict of history has come down in favor of the censors. I doubt history's verdict on today's censors will be different.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The issue with Socrates was more that the ruling elite was seeing the sand shift beneath their feet as power shifted from them to the new merchant class.

[Nige]

‘new, unorthodox ideas’

It’s hard work to challenge orthodoxies, that’s the nature of orthodoxies, but ‘challenge’ is value neutral – unorthodox ideas can often be utter rubbish or even damaging if implemented. You wouldn’t want modern medicine replaced with homeopathy, would you?

[F.D. Wolf]

Many new ideas, perhaps most, are indeed rubbish. But they still deserve to be heard. They should be tested in the marketplace of ideas, not suppressed.

[Nige]

If it's a marketplace, then it's not about which ideas are good, but which ideas have the most money behind them, regardless of merit, which is presumably why so many dreadful ideas dominate.

[F.D. Wolf]

Indeed. Which idea do you imagine had the most money behind it during the COVID vaccine controversies? Who do you imagine was spending that money? The same industry that spends more on advertising than any other.

[Sarcastr0]

Social opprobrium and ignoring stuff is part of the marketplace. Utter open mindedness is not a tenable way for either institutions or individuals to operate.

Demanding you be listened to and have a platform is not free speech.

[Nige]

Well, the good ideas had some backing for a change, it's just a pity they hadn't backed the good idea of pandemic preparedness in time. Bad ideas like anti-vaxx, anti-mask stuff might have had backing from somewhere, or may just have been a breakthrough of idiocy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It is reasonable to conclude that the (sole) disadvantaged group this right-wing organization proposes to help consists of conservatives troubled to find their stale, intolerant thinking increasingly rejected by the modern American mainstream.

These are the folks who gamed the system to stack the civil rights commission for right-wingers.

[hoppy025]

When did you stop molesting little boys?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason your colleagues and employers disrespect you and are eager to see you depart.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Whether on balance free speech advantages or disadvantages marginalized groups is an interesting question, and I don't think the answer is obvious. However, I also don't think that if it disadvantages these groups, that by itself would be a reason for limiting speech. Easy opinion for me to hold, I suppose, not being in a marginalized group.

[Krayt]

Nobody, marginalized or otherwise, lives better lives in their source countries without freedom of speech.

"I, and my issues", squeaks the power hungry corruption, "am so right, so god damned right, it justifies my righteousness silencing others who disagree!"

Fucketh thou.

Using freedom of speech to silence freedom of speech is a contradiction. But dictator wannabees are excited!

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Such righteousness! Of course the real question is not completely free speech or no free speech, but somewhere in the middle. Are there limits that would actually on balance benefit marginalized groups? It's possible, but as I said I'm not sure that by itself would justify those limits.

[bevis the lumberjack]

It would have gone totally swell for, say, MLK and his movement without the right to free speech and the right of assembly. Well maybe not so swell.

Free speech allowed him to energize his folks and keep pounding the message out. Assembly gave them a visual to demonstrate how many thousands were affected and how decent and human those people were. And when authorities in places like Alabama and Mississippi tried to take away their right of assembly – sometimes temporarily successfully – by use of violence it was a visceral display of who was in the right and who was not.

So, yeah, these rights provide the chance for the marginalized to make their plight widely known.

Twitter of the early 1960s would have shut King down as a dangerous insurgent after a few communiques from Mr Hoover.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

All rights, even free speech, have their limits. Could some type of speech be added to the exceptions not given 1A protection, that would benefit marginalized groups? I don't know, but it's possible, and an interesting question.

[bevis the lumberjack]

There are six or so exceptions to the 1A related to speech. Incitement, defamation, threats, fighting words. Fraud. Stuff like that. And they are very narrowly defined.

The Supreme Court, thankfully, has historically been very careful messing with the 1A. It’s pretty obviously the most important item in the BoR.

[Nige]

'It would have gone totally swell for, say, MLK and his movement without the right to free speech and the right of assembly.'

Yeah everyone remembers all the racist cops standing helplessly while they assebled, freely.

'Twitter of the early 1960s would have shut King down as a dangerous insurgent after a few communiques from Mr Hoover. '

This is true. Hoover would have used threats and blackmail to repress yet another left wing movement. Since no threats or blackmail were used to silence any modern equivalent of King on twitter, I guess we've come along a ways.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK, let's get real. I am not going to debate the extent to which the communists (and possibly Soviets) were involved in Dr. King's movement but they'd have been damn fools not to so we need to presume they at least were trying to infiltrate it.

So forget the legitimacy of the message and take Hoover's Cold War focus on Soviet infiltration -- and he'd convinced Truman to shut down the OSS because of the extent to which *it* had been penetrated by the Soviets. (That was no small part of how we lost China to the ChiComs, but I digress...)

How much of what Hoover did was legitimate in terms of national security and how much of it was not? Knowing how good the Soviets were at intelligence and penetration, and how sweet a target the civil rights movement would have been, I'm not able to give an absolute answer on this.

[grb]

1. Hoover wanted to shut down the OSS because it was a rival to his power base. Hoover was always about his own political power.

2. Let’s say the commies did infiltrate King’s movement. To what end? To what effect? Given King’s importance and stature, it’s rather late in the day to write him off as a commie dupe, particular because you then must explain : dupe how? Maybe our Ed can handle that……

3. Which leads to a broader question. Per the hysteria of the McCarthy Era, commies were everywhere – in every field, endeavor and walk of life. If you actually accept that, what did they amount to? The Soviets had some success with a handful of spies, but overall the Communist Menace in our country now seems all hat and no cattle.

[Nige]

‘I am not going to debate’

Of course you’re not. Mind you, to black people the US was as oppressive and brutal a dictatorship as any communist junta.

[Cheerio]

We also have to remember that it’s not like it’s actually possible to “draw a line” and hold it (even if we could hypothetically agree on what such line would be).

The main rationales for “absolutism” in 1A jurisprudence tend to revolve around some version of the slippery slope. Indeed, there’s never been a time/place where the power to suppress speech hasn’t been abused to the suit the preferences of those in power (always starting out small and reasonable-sounding, of course).

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Yes, I agree, which is why I see the question as more of an interesting academic question rather than a call to pass a law or an amendment. There must be ways to empower marginalized groups that doesn't involve narrowing everyone's enumerated rights.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I submit Charles Barkley's white paper:

“If you’re gay, bless you. If you’re trans, bless you. And if you have a problem with that, fuck you!”

[Dr. Ed 2]

True free speech would include the ability to say the converse of that, i.e. "if you are heterosexual, bless you, if you have children, bless you, and and if you have a problem with that, fuck you!"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I support a right to say the converse.

Bigoted, superstitious, obsolete, conservative culture war casualties have rights, too.

[Nige]

That's not the converse. None of that is in conflict or disagreement with the first statement. Unless you want it to be.

[David Bernstein]

You are very confused in not recognizing the distinction between "having a point of view" and "asserting that your point of view is correct with certainly, such that you argue that other points of view are inherently illegitimate and thus should be suppressed."

[Dr. Ed 2]

“asserting that your point of view is correct with certainly, such that you argue that other points of view are inherently illegitimate and thus should be suppressed.”

That's a logical fallacy in that arguing that other points of view are inherently illegitimate does not necessarily mean that they should be suppressed. In fact, if you are truly certain that your point of view is correct, you don't care about the other points of view.

For example, I've seen the sun go down over the ocean, actually seen the curvature of the earth, and hence couldn't care less about those who say that the earth is flat.

There was a time when civil libertarians believed this -- and defending the right of the Nazis to march in Stokie was a good example of this. The ACLU didn't support the Nazis -- most of the ACLU was Jewish -- but they believed in free speech. At least back then they did...

[Dr. Ed 2]

Did you happen to see the point I made about mob speech?

[Ed Grinberg]

The number of forums where he can freely say things is rapidly dwindling. There're multitudes of "righteous" people, in and out of government, working feverishly to drive that number to zero.

[David Bernstein]

I suppose some might defend walking up to a woman and calling her a dirty whore to her face as "freedom of speech expressing an idea" but I think most of us would agree that one can suppress expressions of speech that amount to individualized harassment without it being a crackdown on whatever is meant to be expressed, which can surely be expressed in other ways.

[Ed Grinberg]

To begin with, saying that "Jews [are] responsible for things Israel does" is, pretty obviously, antisemitic.
Now, what's to be done about such a college official?
Let's say it's a private school that takes no government $. In that case, I say: nothing (other than publicizing it and condemning it, of course). It isn't the government's job to prevent a private higher-ed establishment from "miseducating" its students.
But what if If the school does take government funds, or is a public college / university? I say: there shouldn't be any such funding or any such schools. But if there are, i.e., if my $ is paying this college official's salary, I'll be the first in line to demand that the government take action against the school. (I'm OK with you spewing hateful things about me, but I shouldn't have to pay you for it.)

[David Bernstein]

I've criticized such people. I've never said they should be punished, *except* that to the extent people making other sorts of racist comments are punished, there shouldn't be a Jewish exception, because Jews are covered by the same civil rights laws others are.

[F.D. Wolf]

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1 July 1818 – 13 August 1865) was a Hungarian physician and scientist, who was an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures. Described as the "saviour of mothers", he discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever (also known as "childbed fever") could be drastically reduced by requiring hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. Puerperal fever was common in mid-19th-century hospitals and often fatal. He proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards. He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever.

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 2%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory.

The medical establishment has been protecting us from the "nuts" for a long time.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Frederick Douglass sends his regards. And you’re actually claiming that there was no progress - zero - as to black civil rights between the founding and 1964? Free speech had zero impact on the end of slavery? The 14th and 15th amendments? The Brown decision and integration. The desegregation of the army?

And of course there are other marginalized groups that free speech benefitted. Remember the suffragettes?

I know you hate free speech, but - to borrow a phrase - you’re beclowning yourself with this historically ridiculous argument.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Why don’t you read the fucking post you’re responding to?

But, I give. You are right. We should all forfeit our speech rights so that no one can ever contradict or criticize Joe Biden ever again.

Happy? Great. Now leave me alone.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"Why don’t you illuminate what the First Amendment did for black civil rights pre-1940?"

Slavery eliminated in Massachusetts in 1781 when a slave read the 1780 Constitution and asked "what about me?"

Etc.....

[bevis the lumberjack]

Dude, your argument relies in part in the implied assertion that people like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman had zero impact on emancipation. Don’t you recognize how stupid that is? Or are you back in argument for the sake of argument mode?

You really are an intellectual midget.

[Nige]

Free speech doesn't guarantee you a forum, and never has.

[Nige]

This seems remarkably ahistorical, retroactively crediting the benevolent abstract power of the 1st amendment with 'allowing' people to acheive civil rights, when the actual experience seems to have been at best a carefully policed minefield that demanded the highest standards of behaviour and intellect to acheive the most basic acceptance and recognition and at worse brutal supression.

[Nige]

Your argument rests on them not acheiving anything, it was all the magical power of the 1st amendment.

[Nige]

'But, I give. You are right. We should all forfeit our speech rights so that no one can ever contradict or criticize Joe Biden ever again'

You really like to let your inner childish brat out whenever even mildly thwarted or disagreed with, don't you?

[Dr. Ed 2]

IANAA but believe this would constitute the crime of "Assault" in the Commonwealth of Taxachusetts in that a reasonable person would be in fear of an imminent physical attack.

[Estragon]

“but I think most of us would agree that one can suppress expressions of speech that amount to individualized harassment”

This is pretty rich coming from you given your history here

[Dr. Ed 2]

The version I heard was that they had him committed to silence him, that he *wasn't* insane when he went into the asylum.

[F.D. Wolf]

This is a matter of some debate, and I don't know enough about the case to offer an informed opinion, but if a doctor's true motives in institutionalizing someone were to silence him, he, of course, would not openly admit it.

[bevis the lumberjack]

This may literally be the most stupid post in the history of the internet.

The first amendment permits people like Douglass to speak. People hear his words and are persuaded to support emancipation. Eventually enough are persuaded and slavery goes away.

No magic at all, just the simplest cause and effect imaginable. Unfortunately, it appears that it’s not simple enough for your very limited comprehension.

It’s hard to understand how people like you and Queen can be so hostile to free speech.

[Nige]

It’s hard to understand why you credit the abstract concept of ‘free speech’ with the acheivement of people who had to endure real and concrete struggles to be heard. It’s the people that defied oppression and violence to speak that made the first amendment real, not the other way around.

‘hostile to free speech.’

You understand neither hostility nor free speech, though you exhibit vast quantities of the former and bloviate endlessly about the latter.

[Sarcastr0]

The first amendment permits people like Douglass to speak

There is zero evidence that Douglass wouldn’t have been able to speak absent the 1A.

More a 'if you want to talk about real change, get paid for it or else you could get locked up' regime. (h/t HST)

The 1A was not thus understood at the time. You argue from an ignorance of the legal history.