
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


In the more than 50 years that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been on the books, it has helped revolutionize Americans’ understanding of how their government works in practice. But the agencies and departments of the executive branch that are covered by the FOIA have persistently attempted to thwart its effective implementation.
The most recent statutory update to FOIA took place in 2016, and with several years of experience with the revised law behind us, it’s fair to ask: Is FOIA working better now? If not, why not? What is it like to battle federal agencies and departments weekly to pry loose information dealing with immigration policy, telecommunications policy, and the national security establishment? What additional changes to FOIA are needed to truly make the law work as intended? Join our expert panel as we discuss these and related issues.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Racial classification is ubiquitous in American life. Job applications, university admissions, government contracts, and much more involve checking a box stating whether one is black, white, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American.
David Bernstein has written a surprising and revealing book on how these classifications came about, with the federal government playing a leading role. It asks:
Bernstein’s provocative book ends with a call for a separation of race and state. Commenting will be Jane Coaston, host of the New York Times’s podcast The Argument, and Prof. Robert Cottrol, a scholar of race and legal history at George Washington University Law School.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The virus that causes COVID-19 has now become endemic after it first emerged two and a half years ago. In the pandemic’s early days, many countries’ public health officials curtailed economic and social activity to various degrees, prescribed social distancing, enforced lockdowns, required masking, and pushed for other nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce illness and death. Those NPIs imposed an enormous economic and social cost by greatly reducing individual liberty in exchange for promised health benefits. Elsewhere, most famously in Sweden, public health officials were fiercely criticized for implementing less‐harsh “light touch” NPI measures. Sweden’s approach presents a fascinating quasi‐natural experiment to evaluate the merits and demerits of the more liberal approach to managing the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate whether the loss in personal and economic freedom was partly compensated by a decrease in illness and death. Sweden’s outcomes on viral spread, excess mortality, and the socioeconomic consequences of COVID-19 compare well with other countries and suggest that strict NPI policies imposed more harm than good.
Joining us to discuss how well Sweden’s approach worked are Jeanne Lenzer, an independent investigative journalist and regular contributor to The BMJ who has studied this issue; Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, an epidemiologist and public health policy analyst who is an associate professor at University of California San Francisco School of Medicine; Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine and coauthor of the Great Barrington Declaration that urged a pandemic policy of “focused protection”; and Johan Norberg, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, who resides in Stockholm, Sweden, and has studied as well as experienced his country’s pandemic policy. The discussion will be moderated by Cato Institute senior fellow Jeffrey A. Singer.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More than a decade ago, Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution gave hope to the Arab world, showing oppressed peoples that longtime dictators can be peacefully ousted. That hope soon failed, brutally, in Egypt, Syria, and Yemen, but Tunisia kept on track throughout the 2010s, proving to be the best democratic hope in an otherwise autocratic and turbulent Middle East.
Yet since July 2021, Tunisia’s trajectory has taken an increasingly worrisome reversal as well. President Kais Saied suspended the parliament, claimed all executive power, prohibited public gatherings, arrested political opponents, and imposed travel bans. As Cato senior fellow Doug Bandow recently observed on a visit to Tunisia, this authoritarian turn risks the freedoms Tunisians have been enjoying in the past 10 years and can throw the country back to arbitrary rule by a strongman. The change is concerning for the broader Arab and Muslim world, where Tunisia used to be a rare example and source of inspiration. Join us as we discuss these changes and what Tunisia’s future may hold.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Why did those opposed to or in favor of the Constitution write under pseudonyms? Why did Occupy Wall Street protestors wear Guy Fawkes masks? Why do so many people seek to maintain a level of anonymity in their online activities—including web surfing and posting on social media? In the debate over the right to conceal one’s identity versus the potential harms of anonymity, is it possible to strike a constitutionally sound balance? In his latest book, The United States of Anonymous: How the First Amendment Shaped Online Speech, Jeff Kosseff tackles these and other questions through primary‐source research and interviews with participants in the debates, as well as through court cases that have shaped the current legal and political climate impacting anonymous speech and the First Amendment. Join us for a discussion about Jeff Kosseff’s timely new book.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
From the publisher's feed
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

969 Listeners

2,815 Listeners

4,275 Listeners

2,450 Listeners

29 Listeners

1,515 Listeners

2,889 Listeners

979 Listeners

1,403 Listeners

90 Listeners

2,035 Listeners

976 Listeners

738 Listeners

3,924 Listeners

3,344 Listeners

697 Listeners

177 Listeners