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: The Free Speech Podcast, we investigate Professor Campbell’s claims and wonder, if true, what — if anything — we should do about them.
You can subscribe and listen to So to Speak on iTunes, Google Play, and Stitcher, or download episodes directly from SoundCloud.
Stay up to date with So to Speak on the show’s Facebook and Twitter pages, and subscribe to the show’s newsletter at sotospeakpodcast.com.
Have ideas for future shows? Email us at sotospeak@thefire.org.
Have questions you want us to answer during an upcoming show? Call them into our voicemail inbox at 215-315-0100.
FIRE’s award-winning Newsdesk covers the free speech news you need to stay informed.
Sen. Doug Mastriano’s lawsuit is a textbook “SLAPP” case, in which powerful individuals sue their critics into silence through long, costly litigation.
Public colleges must do more to protect the First Amendment rights of students and faculty on campus, according to a new bill in the House.
Despite pushback, the student senate denied funding to the student group Uncensored America for the event in a blatant example of viewpoint discrimination.
carries California state flag at the California State Capitol during a political rally." width="334" height="250" />
In targeting “deceptive” political content, California’s new law threatens satire, parody, and other First Amendment-protected speech.
