Extreme political views and speech have been a feature of American political and social life virtually since the founding of the republic. The Founders intended for the First Amendment to protect governmental infringements on speech, but throughout the republic’s history those protections have been breached on multiple occasions. The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Anarchist Exclusion Act, and the Espionage Act are just some of the examples of federal laws that have criminalized certain kinds of speech. But in a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the high court ruled that speech deemed inflammatory or even threatening could only be prohibited by the government if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.” Ever since, that decision has provided protection against government attacks on speech by individuals or groups across the political spectrum deemed offensive or politically disfavored.

But what happens when adherents of extremist ideologies no longer feel shouting their views is enough? The rise of the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, John Brown Gun Club chapters, and other organized, armed groups raises the specter of a confrontation that morphs from a shouting match into a firefight in an American community between two ideological, violent factions. Does inflammatory speech always result in real violence? Does the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio still draw the right line between constitutionally protected speech and that which is not? Has the rise and proliferation of social media platforms made the transition from violent speech to violent action easier and faster? Our panelists will examine all these issues and more.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The explosion in the use of facial recognition and other biometric technologies by government and private‐​sector entities has sparked a national debate about such systems. Just over a year ago, a Pew Research Center survey of American attitudes toward artificial intelligence also asked how people felt about law enforcement use of facial recognition. Among those surveyed, 46 percent thought the use of facial recognition by law enforcement is a good idea, even though two‐​thirds of respondents said police “would be able to track everyone’s location at all times and that police would monitor Black and Hispanic neighborhoods much more often than other neighborhoods.”

How reliable is facial recognition? Can biases be unconsciously worked into the algorithms that make facial recognition possible? How many cases of mistaken identity have been attributed to facial recognition to date? How does the law at the federal, state, or local level impact the use of biometric technology? Is the technology advancing faster than the law and policy designed to govern its use? What is the state of the Transportation Security Administration’s facial recognition and biometrics programs for air travel? Can a person be forced to put their finger on their phone to open it for law enforcement officers absent a criminal predicate? Can private companies field facial recognition technology for the purpose of deciding who can or cannot buy a product or service, attend a concert, or even enter a building absent a safety concern? Our expert panel will tackle these and related questions.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

There are legitimate concerns about the safety and well‐​being of children online. This has stimulated the interest of policymakers, and numerous legislative and regulatory proposals are being debated. Like many areas, however, civil society—not government—likely holds the best solutions. Government intervention is a blunt instrument and will itself create additional problems—particularly in the areas of freedom of expression and privacy—as compared with individual solutions undertaken by parents and families themselves.

This virtual policy forum brings together policy and child safety experts to discuss the risks and benefits young people may experience online and the tools parents and policymakers can consider to encourage a positive online experience and respond to concerns that they may face without sacrificing speech or privacy more generally.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This panel explores the impacts and outcomes of critical social justice ideology on black wellbeing in k‑12 and higher ed. Starting in pre‑K and ending in the university, education that claims to empower students within a liberal arts education often seems disempowering and quite illiberal. This toxic tutelage, according to the team at Free Black Thought, does more harm than good. Hear members of Free Black Thought have a conversation on what needs to be done, what can be done, and what is already being done to combat the detriments of critical social justice pedagogy in our schools.

Panelists for this webinar include Dr. Tabia Lee, a founding member of Free Black Thought, Jason Littlefield, executive director of EmpowerED Pathways, Connie Morgan, author and UX researcher, and Erec Smith, associate professor of rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania and visiting scholar at the Cato Institute.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In May 2018, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became effective. The immediate impact was seen in the millions of dollars and man hours spent on compliance; the loss of certain websites or services from the European Union, such as the Los Angeles Times; and changes to user experiences and privacy choices. Advocates of the GDPR have argued that the tradeoffs are worth it for improved cybersecurity and the increased privacy rights of EU citizens, but critics have pointed to the potential impact on other values, such as speech and innovation, and have questioned if the GDPR has actually led to improvements or just increased red tape.

Five years on, the impact of the GDPR on Americans and American companies as well as their European counterparts continues to be felt. As the United States debates its own potential federal data privacy law and sees an emerging patchwork of state laws, what lessons can we learn from the GDPR about benefits and consequences of data privacy regulation?

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us for a discussion of Eric Claeys’s forthcoming book, Natural Property Rights (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press). The book introduces and defends a theory of property relying on labor, natural rights, and traditional principles of natural law. Justified on those grounds, property rights protect individual freedom, but they also help government officials resolve the basic resource conflicts that arise in property law. Natural Property Rights illustrates this with examples from real estate, oil and gas, tangible personal property, water rights, government regulatory and taking powers (and constitutional limits on those). Claeys’s work in this area was recently the focus of a symposium hosted by Texas A&M University’s Journal of Property Law.

Matthew Cavedon will respond by commenting on the historical context for John Locke’s work, on which Claeys relies. Cavedon will argue that Spanish Renaissance scholar Francisco Suárez offers nuances regarding the relationship between natural law and property rights that correct for deficiencies in Lockean theory.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Association of American Medical Colleges projects a shortage of as many as 48,000 primary care physicians by 2034. Yet there are not enough residency positions for the number of medical school graduates. Missouri became the first state to address this problem by launching a new licensure category: assistant physician (AP). APs are essentially apprentice physicians. The reform lets graduates without a residency position provide primary care in clinics while enhancing their knowledge and skills. Six other states have passed similar laws: Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana, and Idaho.

Please join Kevin D. Dayaratna, PhD, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis; Keith J. Frederick, DO, a former Missouri legislator who spearheaded the country’s first AP law; and Lyman Wostrel, MD, a primary care physician practicing under Missouri’s AP law, to discuss this issue. Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey A. Singer, MD, will moderate the discussion.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On Sunday, May 14, NATO’s most controversial ally will hold perhaps its most fateful elections since its founding in 1923. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been ruling Turkey for 21 years in an increasingly authoritarian and erratic fashion, may win and drag the nation further toward dictatorship. But there is also a chance that the opposition may win, as the race is tight and as Turkey’s elections are still competitive despite dramatic deterioration in the country’s freedoms and rule of law.

Please join us for a discussion of what is at stake just two days prior to what may turn out to be a historic election for Turkey and East‐​West relations.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join us online for the launch of an inspiring new book from Anthony Sanders of the Institute for Justice, Baby Ninth Amendments: How Americans Embraced Unenumerated Rights and Why It Matters (University of Michigan Press, 2023). The book tells the unheralded story of how Americans carefully sought to protect liberty from overweening government by including in most state constitutions specific provisions (so‐​called Baby Ninths) that expressly protect unenumerated rights.

Sanders explains why it is impossible to itemize every right a constitution should protect and shows that however many rights are specifically enumerated, other important rights will inevitably go unmentioned. So what is a constitutional drafter to do? Sanders argues that early in American history, a solution was advanced by drafters of state constitutions in the form of what he calls an “etcetera clause” that contains language borrowed directly from the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a result, two‐​thirds of states today contain these “Baby Ninth Amendments” that even skeptics of unenumerated rights must not only acknowledge but also give meaningful substance to. This has important implications for state courts, which have thus far largely ignored these important provisions, and for the larger question of whether it is ever appropriate—or indeed even mandatory—for judges to protect unenumerated rights. The short answers, as Sanders makes clear, are yes and yes.

Clark Neily will talk with Sanders about his new book. Join us online on May 10 at noon.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.