UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky on the First Amendment and the Capitol Riot — A Conversation About Trump, Twitter and the Limits of Free Speech
The Capitol riot and its aftermath raise a host of questions about the First Amendment and free expression. Was Trump’s speech protected? When does political protest cross the line into unlawful behavior? Meanwhile, publishers and social-media platforms have taken unprecedented steps to silence speakers, including Trump. What are the implications of this crackdown for free expression generally?
Join noted constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, in conversation with First Amendment Coalition Executive Director David Snyder.
WATCH THE VIDEO ON DEMAND
Thursday, January 14, 5:00-6:00 PM PST
Via Zoom
Snyder’s Q&A with Dean Chemerinsky will be followed by extended audience question and comment. You may also submit questions in advance to FAC@firstamendmentcoalition.org.
One Comment
I fully agree with Prof. Chemerinsky on the assumption that social media companies cannot invoke
Immunity from lawsuits while prohibiting speech on their platforms. Suppressing content is a slippery slope that will backfire. Section 230 should not protect them from lawsuits.
However, I fully disagree with the Dean on the analysis of President Trump’s alleged incitement based on the Brandenburg test standard: speech can be punished if there is a likelihood of imminent illegal threat of harm and speech is direct to cause illegal harm.
Cherminsky bases his analysis on the premise that the President used the word “Fight” many times, assuming the literal meaning of the word, rather than the metaphoric one. This is not automatically true by itself. It is an interpretation of President Trump’s use of words in his speech. A call to arms is a literal invitation to insurrection. Fighting for what you believe in is an exercise of Freedom of Expression, sacrosanct liberty protected in a healthy democracy.
Comments are closed.