Tiananmen in History and Memory
We must use our privilege as students in the free world to keep the memory of the Tiananmen Square movement alive.
On the Newsstand:Free Speech
Weighing In: What the Court Got Right
Peter M. Bozzo's recent editorial in The Crimson misses the mark on Snyder v. Phelps and the Court's ruling.
Purging Peretz
The Martin Peretz issue, it seems, is not going away. At least, that’s what the Undergraduate Council would like us to believe. Most students and faculty have moved on, for better or worse, and most probably aren’t aware of the UC’s latest legislative achievement: a bill that “fully condemns” the University’s decision to accept donations in Peretz’s honor. But the UC bill deserves our attention, ... Read More
The “Everybody Draw Muhammad” Contest
In response to the South Park / Muhammad controversy, several bloggers with a libertarian bent have been pushing the idea of a “Draw Muhammad!” contest to retaliate against the New York-based Islamic extremist group Revolution Muslim. The idea originated with noted sex columnist Dan Savage, who has advertised it as a way to retaliate against Revolution Muslim’s “veiled threats” and “water down ... Read More
Weighing In: The Great Tax Debate
The Great Tax Debate begins every year in the blogosphere around April 15th. On the line are normative claims, like whether and to what extent we should be distributing resources communally. But the facts are easy to get wrong too. So today I thought I’d lay out some factual correctives to Peyton’s exemplar of the Great Tax Debate form, “Robin ... Read More
Questions for George Will
George Will worked himself into quite a lather today about a law review article by some visiting assistant law professor at Duke that argues that the principle of free speech might be subordinated to governmental interests in combating corruption and the distorting influences of wealth on the political process. No surprises here: Will is a leading opponent of campaign finance ... Read More
The Supreme Court as Movie Reviewer?
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the interesting, vexing, and somewhat hilarious case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. The question before the Court is whether the low-budget hit-piece “Hillary: The Movie” is subject to the financing restrictions of McCain-Feingold, which regulates so-called “electioneering communications.” In other words, is a 90-minute movie slamming a presidential candidate ... Read More
We, the Curators
I’m surpised that Sam hasn’t blogged about this yet, but I’m happy enough to steal it from him: last Wednesday, the Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. For anyone who doesn’t recall, Summum is a small but gutsy religious faith that contributed a monument of its “Seven Aphorisms” to the Pleasant Grove city government, ... Read More
The Peculiar Summum Case
Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Summum, a small, quirky Utah sect, have no constitutional right to demand that the city of Pleasant Grove display their “Seven Aphorisms” in a public park where the city has long maintained a Ten Commandments monument. The question before the Court was not whether the Establishment Clause forbade the display of the Ten ... Read More
How Roland Burris Helped Me Study For My Con-Law Exam
As I studied for my ConLaw final, this question popped into my head: How can people claim to be able to wring objective meaning or “original intent” out of vague phrases like “the freedom of speech,” “equal protection of the laws,” and “due process of law,” when constitutional experts can’t even agree whether or not the Senate is allowed to ... Read More
