Artwork

Content provided by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

Ep. 48 ‘Natural Rights and the First Amendment’ w/ Jud Campbell

1:07:18
 
Share
 

Manage episode 194657358 series 1750695
Content provided by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Did the founders intend for the First Amendment to protect as much speech as it does today?

University of Richmond Assistant Professor of Law Jud Campbell argues probably not. He is the author of an article recently published in The Yale Law Journal that Cass Sunstein says “might well be the most illuminating work on the original understanding of free speech in a generation.”

In “Natural Rights and the First Amendment,” professor Campbell argues that the founders’ understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press rested on “a multifaceted understanding of natural rights that no longer survives in American constitutional thought.” He contends that those rights “were expansive in scope but weak in their legal effect, allowing for restrictions of expression to promote the public good.”

On this episode of So to Speak, we investigate professor Campbell’s claims and wonder, if true, what — if anything — we should do about them.

www.sotospeakpodcast.com

Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk

Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast

Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Call in a question: 215-315-0100

  continue reading

218 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 194657358 series 1750695
Content provided by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by So to Speak: The Free Speech Podcast or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Did the founders intend for the First Amendment to protect as much speech as it does today?

University of Richmond Assistant Professor of Law Jud Campbell argues probably not. He is the author of an article recently published in The Yale Law Journal that Cass Sunstein says “might well be the most illuminating work on the original understanding of free speech in a generation.”

In “Natural Rights and the First Amendment,” professor Campbell argues that the founders’ understanding of the freedoms of speech and of the press rested on “a multifaceted understanding of natural rights that no longer survives in American constitutional thought.” He contends that those rights “were expansive in scope but weak in their legal effect, allowing for restrictions of expression to promote the public good.”

On this episode of So to Speak, we investigate professor Campbell’s claims and wonder, if true, what — if anything — we should do about them.

www.sotospeakpodcast.com

Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk

Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast

Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org

Call in a question: 215-315-0100

  continue reading

218 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide