In this episode, Etienne C. Toussaint, Associate Professor of Law at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law, discusses his article "Blackness as Fighting Words," which is published in the Virginia Law Review Online. Toussaint begins by explaining how the First Amendment "fighting words" doctrine resonates with Black experience of policing and racial injustice. He observes that the state and the police treat blackness and Black dissent as a form of fighting words, excluded from protection. And he reflects on what it means for how we think about speech in relation to other constitutional rights. Toussaint is on Twitter at @EtienneT_Esq.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Felder-Fayard Associate Professor of Law at Tulane University School of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @MaybellRomero.

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

In this episode, Evan Bernick, Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, discusses his article "Eliminating Constitutional Law," which will be published in the South Dakota Law Review. Bernick begins by briefly describing the different ways legal theorists talk about the concept of law and how they are different. He observes that some legal theorists have argued that the law requires us to adopt particular methodologies of constitutional interpretation, and explains why he thinks they are wrong. He argues that we should eliminate reliance on legalism from constitutional decisionmaking, and reflects on what that would mean. Bernick is on Twitter at @evanbernick.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, David A. Friedman, Associate Dean for Strategic Initiatives and Professor of Law at Willamette University College of Law, discusses his article "Do We Need a Bar Exam ... for Experienced Lawyers?," which will be published in the UC Irvine Law Review. Friedman begins by describing the controversy that erupted over the administration of the bar exam during the Covid pandemic. He observes that the bar exam is supposed to ensure consumers that lawyers are competent, but most lawyers who get disciplined for misbehavior or incompetence have decades of experience. He suggests that if we insist on testing new lawyers, we should be testing longtime lawyers as well, because they present a larger risk to the public. Friedman is on Twitter at @profdaf.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Ryan Muldoon, Director of the Philosophy, Political Science and Economics Program and Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Buffalo, discusses his work on club goods and democracy. Muldoon begins by explaining how club goods are different from private and public good. He observes that club goods can both increase and decrease equity and efficiency. He reflects on how to determine whether a particular club good is good or bad, and how to regulate club goods more effectively. Muldoon is on Twitter at @RyanLMuldoon.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Rachel E. Lopez, Director of the Andy and Gwen Stern Community Lawyering Clinic and Associate Professor of Law at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law, discusses her essay "Unentitled: The Power of Designation in the Legal Academy," which will be published in the Rutgers Law Review. Lopez explains why academic titles matter, and how they reify academic hierarchies. She reminds us how academic hierarchies use titles. And she reflects on potential alternatives. Lopez is on Twitter at @Rachel_E_Lopez.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Anya Bernstein, Professor of Law at SUNY Buffalo School of Law, and Glen Staszewski, Professor of Law and A.J. Thomas Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University College of Law, discuss their article "Judicial Populism," which will be published in the Minnesota Law Review. Bernstein and Staszewski begin by explaining what they mean by populism, and why they think it is antidemocratic. They describe how populism affects judging. And they reflect on how we can avoid it. Bernstein is on Twitter at @anyabernstein.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Cynthia Meyers, Professor of Communication at the College of Mount Saint Vincent, discusses her work on the history of radio blacklisting, including her book "A Word from Our Sponsor: Admen, Advertising, and the Golden Age of Radio." Meyers explains how and why the blacklist worked, focusing on the incentives of sponsors, broadcasters, writers, and performers. She provides critical context that helps explain why sponsors and broadcasters were receptive to complaints, and why those incentives changed. Meyers is on Twitter at @AnneHummert.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Brian N. Larson, Associate Professor of Law at Texas A&M University School of Law, discusses his article "Endogenous and Dangerous," which will be published in the Nevada Law Journal. Larson begins by observing that judicial opinions often include endogenous citations, or citations that don't appear in the briefing of either party. He presents the results of an empirical study of copyright fair use cases designed to identify when and why judges used endogenous citations. And he argues that courts should allow parties to brief endogenous citations used to support substantive conclusions. Larson is on Twitter at @Rhetoricked.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, David P. Weber, Professor of Law at Creighton University School of Law, discusses his article "Athletes in Transit: Why the Game is Different in Sports and the Visas Should be Too," which will be published in the Tulane Law Review. Weber begins by noting the scholarly consensus that immigration is generally a net positive to the national economy, and observes that this is especially true in the case of immigrant athletes, but is often frustrated by the immigration laws. He explains that there are many different visas that professional and amateur athletes can use to immigrate to or visit the United States, but that they all have problems. Among other things, they are excessively subjective, unpredictable, and unfair. He argues for reform, both by rolling back current procedure and by liberalizing athlete visas. Weber is on Twitter at @DavidPWeber.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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

In this episode, Noah Chauvin, a recent graduate of William & Mary Law School and a current judicial clerk, discusses his scholarship on free speech, including his article "Governments 'Erasing History' and the Importance of Free Speech," which will be published in the Northern Illinois University Law Review, and his book review, "Anthony Leaker's Against Free Speech: Shadowboxing with Free Speech Principles," which will be published in the South Carolina Law Review. Chauvin begins by reflecting on contemporary criticisms of free speech principles, identifying what he considers their strongest arguments and explaining why they are wrong. He discusses why he was disappointed by Leaker's arguments against free speech, as compared to arguments made by other critics. And he explains why we should be wary of arguments criticizing free speech principles. Chauvin is on Twitter at @NoahChauvin.

This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.

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