Tag: loyalty

  • Free speech in an age of fear: The new system loyalty oaths – First Amendment News 464

    Free speech in an age of fear: The new system loyalty oaths – First Amendment News 464

    “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” — Benjamin Franklin

    If you look beneath the veneer of it all, what surfaces from the chaos of the last eight weeks is a demand for unyielding loyalty to a man and his personal and political whims. 

    His demands, followed in fear, are cravenly honored by political figures, media corporations, university presidents, law firms, Justice Department lawyers, and all others who surrender on bended knee to an authoritarian figure who holds the title of the 47th president of the United States. 

    Few stand up to him; many kowtow to him. Silence and sycophancy surround him. Meanwhile, his agency hitman exercises power with unconstitutional zeal. 

    When persuasion fails, when logic departs, when toleration ceases to be tolerated, and when the very pillars of freedom of expression are battered with ruinous consistency, then the promise of the First Amendment is breached with abandon — this while so many fiddle. 

    Given what has gone on in the first quarter of 2025 alone, this much is true: We are witnessing frontal attacks on freedom, especially our First Amendment freedoms (e.g., FANs 463, 462, 461, and 460). 

    Government by executive order is his calling card — his “trump” card. Shakedowns are his tactic. “Administrative error” is the justification given by his confederates for egregious due process violations. 

    No matter how personal, punitive, or partisan, this power (often unconstitutional in principle and authoritarian in practice) has become this administration’s default position. His will is effected by his lieutenants, implemented by his attorney general, executed by his DOGE goons, fulfilled by his FBI director and other cabinet officials, orchestrated by his deputy of policy, and defended by his press secretary. 

    In such ways, as professor Timothy Zick’s “Executive Watch” posts have revealed and will continue to reveal, the First Amendment is also under siege.

    Fear is the engine that drives so much of this aggrandizement of power, and the submission to it. As in the McCarthy era, robotic loyalty fuels that engine. What we are seeing in Washington is a new era in compelled allegiance. Executive order “negotiations” are premised on mandatory loyalty.

    To get a sense of the nature of this problem, simply consider some of what Thomas I. Emerson (a revered civil liberties and free speech scholar) wrote 55 years ago in his seminal “The System of Freedom of Expression.” When liberty is contingent on one’s “beliefs, opinions, or associations,” there is a “grossly inhibiting effect upon the free exercise of expression.” 

    The inevitable result, Emerson added, is to silence “the more conscientious and invite the less scrupulous to pass. ‘Self-executing’ by its nature, it places the burden upon the person…to interpret [the loyalty oaths’] purpose, recall all past events in his life, and decide what current or future [orders might affect him] at his peril.” The net effect is to leave citizens “at the continuing mercy” of the government. 

    Put bluntly: “It is inherently demeaning to a free people.” (emphasis added) 

    It is that fear, born of direct or veiled demands for loyalty, that has seized power in the control rooms of our government. Time and again, day in and day out, yet another executive order, followed by servile enforcement, abridges our First Amendment freedoms. When will it end? When will enough men and women of courage join together and say “enough”? One answer was tendered in 1776 in a work titled “The American Crisis.” To quote its author, Thomas Paine:

    These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

    Related 

    To preserve America’s tradition as a home for fearless writing, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Substack are partnering to support writers residing lawfully in this country targeted by the government for the content of their writing — those who, as Hitchens once put it, “committed no crime except that of thought in writing.”

    If you fit this category, whether or not you publish on Substack, we urge you to get in touch immediately at thefire.org/alarm or pages.substack.com/defender.

    Coming Soon

    A Question and Answer interview with Janie Nitze, co-author with Justice Neil Gorsuch of “Over Ruled: The Human Toll of Too Much Law.”

    See “An open invitation to Justice Neil Gorsuch and Janie Nitze to reply to their new book’s critics,” FAN 444 (Oct. 23)

    Voice of America court victory in journalists’ firing case

    The Voice of America can’t be silenced just yet. A federal judge on March 28 halted the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the eight-decade-old U.S. government-funded international news service, calling the move a “classic case of arbitrary and capricious decision making.”

    Judge James Paul Oetken blocked the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which runs Voice of America, from firing more than 1,200 journalists, engineers and other staff that it sidelined two weeks ago in the wake of President Donald Trump’s ordering its funding slashed.

    Seth Stern on DOGE and related free speech issues

    First Amendment Watch spoke with director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, Seth Stern, about the First Amendment issues baked into the online exchange. Stern described Martin’s letter as intentionally ambiguous, argued that confusion over DOGE as a quasi-government agency brings its transparency responsibilities into question, and described the free speech issues that may arise from Musk’s roles as a social media platform owner and advisor to the president.

    Yale Law School ‘Free Speech in Crisis’ conference

    Agenda

    Friday, March 28

    9:15 a.m. | Welcome/Opening Remarks 

    • Organizers: Jack Balkin, Genevieve Lakier, Mikey McGovern

    9:30 a.m. | Panel 1: Media Environment 

    • Chair: Paul Starr, Princeton University
    • Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School
    • Mary Anne Franks, George Washington University School of Law
    • Eugene Volokh, Hoover Institution

    11:15 a.m. | Panel 2: Polarization 

    • Chair: Robert Post, Yale Law School
    • Nicole Hemmer, Vanderbilt University
    • Liliana Mason, SNF Agora Institute, Johns Hopkins University
    • Ganesh Sitaraman, Vanderbilt Law School

    2:15 p.m. | Panel 3: Political Marketplace 

    • Chair: Rick Hasen, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law
    • Rick Pildes, NYU Law School
    • Bradley A. Smith, Capital University Law School
    • Ann Southworth, University of California, Irvine School of Law

    4:00 p.m. | Panel 4: Workplace 

    • Chair: Amanda Shanor, University of Pennsylvania
    • Helen Norton, University of Colorado School of Law
    • Benjamin Sachs, Harvard Law School
    • Liz Sepper, University of Texas Law School

    Saturday, March 29

    9:30 a.m. | Panel 5: Knowledge Production 

    • Chair: Amy Kapczynski, Yale Law School
    • E.J. Fagan, University of Illinois Chicago
    • Vicki Jackson, Harvard Law School
    • Naomi Oreskes, Harvard

    11:15 a.m. | Panel 6: Campus Politics 

    Chair: Genevieve Lakier, University of Chicago Law School

    • Judith Butler, University of California, Berkeley
    • Athena Mutua, University at Buffalo School of Law
    • Keith Whittington, Yale Law School

    1:00 p.m. | Wrap-Up Conversation 

    • Organizers: Jack Balkin, Genevieve Lakier, Mikey McGover

    Forthcoming book on free speech and incitement 

    Cover of the book "Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century" by Eric Kasper and JoAnne Sweeny

    Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century explores the line between free speech and incitement, which is a form of expression not protected by the First Amendment. Incitement occurs when a person intentionally provokes their audience to engage in illegal or violent action that is likely to, or will, occur imminently. 

    This doctrine evolved from World War I through the Cold War and the civil rights movement era, culminating in a test announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Since the 1970s, this doctrine has remained largely unchanged by the Supreme Court and, as such, has received relatively little academic or media attention. 

    Since the late 2010s, however, violence at political rallies, armed protests around Confederate statues, social unrest associated with demonstrations against police, and an attack on the U.S. Capitol have led to new incitement cases in the lower courts and an opportunity to examine how incitement is defined and applied. Authors from different perspectives in Free Speech and Incitement in the Twenty-First Century help the reader understand the difference between free speech and incitement.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast on Columbia University, DEI, and law firms

    We explore how censorship is impacting institutions — from universities to law firms to the Maine House of Representatives.


    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Free speech related

    Thompson v. United States (Decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 with special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (Interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 463: ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Love, loyalty, and liberty: ASU alumni unite to defend free speech

    Late last year, a group of Arizona State University alumni gathered on the rooftop of the Canopy Hotel — high enough to see the headlights snake through the city of Tempe, but low enough to feel the pounding bass line of Mill Avenue’s nightlife. 

    Though the setting was casual, the conversation was anything but. A simple question had brought them together: What obligations do alumni have to their alma mater? 

    For most graduates, the answer is simple. Come back for Homecoming, buy the sweatshirt, scribble a check when the fundraising office calls. Thanks for your generosity! Click. 

    But for the assembled Sun Devils — spanning the classes of ’85 to ’24 — their connection to ASU is more than rah–rah nostalgia. They feel a duty to protect what made the university worth attending in the first place. 

    And so, that evening, they formed ASU Alumni for Free Speech. Their mission? “To promote and strengthen free expression, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity, both on campus and throughout the global ASU community.” 

    The group’s inaugural chairman is Joe Pitts, ASU class of ’23 — whose beard, broad shoulders, and sage intellect belie his youth. For him, alumni should be more than mere spectators or “walking check books,” as he puts it, “endlessly giving and expecting little in return.” Instead, they should be invested stakeholders. 

    Pitts says it’s now fashionable to view a college diploma as little more than a fancy receipt. People think, I paid my tuition, endured the required courses, and behold: I’m credentialed! A neat little market transaction — no lingering ties, no ongoing investment.

    But this mindset, Pitts argues, is both morally bankrupt and pragmatically wrong-headed. As a practical matter, he says, “the value of your degree is tied to the reputation of your school — if your alma mater improves over time, your degree becomes more prestigious. If it declines, so does the respect it commands.” 

    And in the cutthroat world of status-signaling and social capital that matters — a lot. 

    ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    As a moral matter, “spending four years (or even more) at a university inevitably shapes you in some way,” Pitts says. “And in most cases, it’s for the better — even if we don’t exactly realize it at the time.” Think about it: how many unexpected friendships or serendipitous moments of clarity, insight, rebellion, and revelation do we owe our alma mater? 

    To discard that connection the moment you graduate — to treat it like an expired gym membership — isn’t just ungrateful. It’s a rejection of one’s own formation.

    But beyond these considerations, Pitts insists that what united them on the Canopy Hotel rooftop last year was — love, actually. Not the saccharine, Hallmark kind or the fleeting thrill of a Tinder rendezvous, but the sort of love that drives men to build cathedrals and forge legacies.

    Echoing St. Thomas Aquinas, Pitts says, “We love ASU, and to love is to will the good of the other — not to sit idly by.” And what is the good? It’s a campus where students unapologetically speak their minds; where professors dare to probe the perilous and the provocative; where administrators resist the temptation to do their best Big Brother impression! 

    Fortunately for ASU Alumni for Free Speech, their alma mater is already a national leader when it comes to free speech on campus — though, as Pitts notes, that’s “a damn low bar.”

    ASU ranks 14 out of 251 schools in FIRE’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings, and has maintained a “green light” rating from FIRE since 2011, meaning its official policies don’t seriously imperil free expression. In 2018, ASU adopted the Chicago principles, committing to the “free, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas” on campus.

    The university didn’t stop there. This spring, ASU will launch a Center for Free Speech alongside an annual Free Speech Forum. 

    But despite these credentials, the specter of censorship still lingers at ASU, and the numbers tell the tale:

    • 68% of ASU students believe shouting down a speaker is at least rarely acceptable.
    • 35% believe violence can sometimes be justified to silence speech.
    • 37% self-censor at least once or twice a month. 
    • Over one-third of surveyed ASU faculty admit to self-censorship in their writing.

    And so — like the cavalry cresting the hill — ASU Alumni for Free Speech arrives just in time.

    “When controversy inevitably arises on a campus of 100,000 students,” Pitts argues, “the defense of free expression shouldn’t be left solely to outside organizations or political bodies. Instead, those speaking up should be people who genuinely care about ASU and have its best interests at heart.”

    ASU Alumni for Free Speech aims to be that voice. “In the long run, we want to have a seat at the table,” Pitts explains. “We want to build relationships not just with the ASU administration but also with the Arizona Board of Regents.”

    Along with FIRE, ASU alumni have already petitioned the Arizona Board of Regents, urging them to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality, which would prevent the university from taking positions on current political issues and weighing in on the cause-du-jour.

    SIGN THE PETITION TO ADOPT INSTITUTIONAL NEUTRALITY!

    Pitts and the rest of ASU Alumni for Free Speech are tired of playing cheerleader. They’re here to ensure that ASU flourishes not just today, but for every Sun Devil yet to step onto Palm Walk for the first time.

    “Sometimes that may look like applause,” Pitts says. “Other times, that may look like criticism.” 

    In either case, he insists, it’s an act of love.

    If you’re ready to join ASU Alumni for Free Speech, or if you’re interested in forming a free speech alumni alliance at your alma mater, contact Bobby Ramkissoon at bobby.ramkissoon@thefire.org. We’ll connect you with like-minded alumni and offer guidance on how to effectively protect free speech and academic freedom for all. 

    Source link