#FreeSpeech in the News: Jan. 23, 2017

As the Citadel of Free Speech here in Cleveland, we work to protect and promote the basis of our democracy by sharing related stories, commentary, and opinions on free speech in the 21st century. Here's what's making the news - and what you should know about - this week.


“Teaching is not political in the way that some critics assume.”

The dangerous myth of ‘political correctness’ that itself represses free speech: Joan E. Cashin,


“The government fared only modestly better, however, as Deputy Solicitor General Malcom Stewart struggled to explain how federal law banning ‘disparaging’ trademarks can be applied consistently.”

A Band Called The Slants Test Supreme Court’s Commitment To Free Speech, Forbes


“It is critical that college and university campuses remain spaces where Jewish students can learn without fear of anti-Semitic assault. They have that right. The AAA seeks to protect that right and the right of free speech generally.”

Freedom of speech and the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act on college campuses, The Hill


“The government ‘doesn’t get to decide what’s a slur,’ says Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who filed a brief in the Supreme Court siding with The Slants. ‘It shouldn’t be the government that makes that call.’”

In Battle Over Band Name, Supreme Court Considers Free Speech And Trademarks, NPR


“It just seemed to me such an egregious 1st Amendment affront that someone has to do something.”

Patt Morrison asks: Lawyer Ted Boutrous Jr. on preserving the 1st Amendment under Trump, Los Angeles Times


“The PTO maintains that it’s not really regulating speech, since Tam is free to call his band whatever he wants. But denying him the trademark-protecting benefits of registration clearly imposes a burden on his speech, analogous to denying copyright registration for a book that bothers a bureaucrat.”

Offensive Trademarks are Free Speech,

Comments (0)

You must be signed in to leave a comment. Sign In / Register