This afternoon, I have the pleasure of speaking to lawyers and judges at the American Bar Association, which is meeting in my hometown of Chicago. I will be discussing my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” and the erosion of free speech in the United States.
The ABA meeting is being held at the Hyatt Regency and I will be speaking at 2 pm.
It is a welcomed opportunity to speak with lawyers who want to protect not just free speech rights, but also guarantee a diversity of viewpoints with the ABA. The anti-free speech movement discussed in the book largely began in higher education and has been led by law professors and lawyers who view free speech as harmful or, as one author recently argued, the “Achilles Heel” of the United States. I obviously hold a different view of free speech and I welcome the chance to have a civil discussion with lawyers with different viewpoints.
I also love being back in my hometown and a chance to spend a few days with my 97-year-old mother, Angela. Born in Ohio in 1927 to a coal miner and union organizer, she is going strong and retains her great sense of humor. When I surprised her from the airport, she immediately said “Ok, I have not finished your book!” So, for those still plowing through it, I make no judgments . . . but I would not wait for the movie.
Here is the flyer for the event: ABA Caucus Flyer 8-3-24 final
You supposed constitutional experts make me laugh. The first amendment says; “Congress shall make no law”, which is a constraint on the power of the States as the Union assembled in Congress, it has nothing to do with you having the right to free speech in any context.
By the way; what is the purpose of federal laws and what constitutes a federal law?
If you can’t answer this question, turn in your expert card immediately!
The Constitution of the United States is a participation versus compliance agreement between the States which establishes the benefits, privileges, rights of participation in decision making and cost of membership in the Union. Which means, only the States have agreed to comply with laws that they participate in making, and the laws that are made by the States as the Union are only binding on the States, they cannot reach into a State, or outside the Union where they have no authority or jurisdiction.
This limits the laws that can be made by the federal government, they only concern the States collectively, like rules in an HOA. The rules of my HOA do not apply to other HOA’s, and their rules do not apply to my HOA. So, these are not 10 commandments laws, these are laws which manage the collective interest of the States, and more specifically, manages choices related to the collective interest of the States, which manages how the States interact with each other to form and maintain the Union. How the States “Act” as the Union is managed through treaties, which has a different quorum and majority consensus requirement than making laws.
If we determine the number of troops, the equipment and the state of readiness of our military forces, that is done through laws, when we deploy those troops and how they participate in an altercation, the parameters of that deployment are determined through the treaty process, not by law. Laws form and maintain the Union, treaties determine how we act as a union, a free and independent State with the full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do All other Acts and Things am Independent State may by right do.
The Constitution of the United States forms and assembles the States as a legislative assembly in Congress governed by legislative processes to reach a majority consensus of All the States as the Union and the Established Government Authority. The Constitution is the blueprints and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to assemble and operate a collective decision-making institution.
Government has absolutely nothing to do with governing the people, the collective decision making of the people is what is governed, and the governor is the legislative process to reach a majority consensus.
I’m so glad you have an audience like this. Tell them we’re taking names.
How bout blm, no arrests ?
KNOW THE ENEMY
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
_____________________________
He who opposes free speech is the enemy who must be known.
Those who oppose the First Amendment freedom of speech are direct and mortal enemies of the American Thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America.
JT, I recommend you obtain a concealed carry permit and sleep with a gun on the nightstand, if you don’t do so already.
antonio
Prof Turley, great book!
There is a “sweet spot” for maximizing freedom of speech and thought bookended by two malignancies. The first is closed-mindedness in the form of censoring or blocking ideation that challenges one’s comfort zone or way of thinking. The other danger is weaponizing speech with militant tactics — intending to intimidate opponents, deceive the gullible, and radicalize the semi-receptive.
The turning away from free speech therefore divides into two distinct causes, one noble and constructive (suppressing militant weaponization), and one pathetic (suppressing the merely discomforting voiced with civility).
The key to progress is teasing apart these two enemies of free speech, aligning with open-mindedness (intellectual strength), and battling to suppress militant tactics. The sweet spot requires a detailed treatment of rules of civility — and equally intense focus on how best to enforce them. Enforcing civility therefore is a responsibility of adults in a free society, weighing most heavily on an organization’s leaders. Militants will castigate enforcement of civility as “censorship” — they morph language to confuse, divide and conquer. Civility benefits from using neutral, unifying forms of language, and avoiding accusatory, factionalized coded messaging and sloganeering. This is where cultivating operational norms of civility and enforcing them diligently becomes the primary task.
Good luck, Professor, and thank you for all you do.
Unfortunately, the ABA represents only the biggest law firms and pretty much has forgotten the rankk and file members of the Bar. I quit that organization long ago when the financial committment was way too high – and that’s pretty much the goal of the ABA. I do, howeer, think it’s great that the organization will hear the comments of a real voice of reason in the legal profession – something the ABA really is not usually interested in.
Your book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, could make an interesting documentary.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag=simonsayscom
Civil discussion with those people? There is a reason why I never joined the ABA after graduation.
Just the mention of an “ABA Convention” reminds me once again that there’s never a good asteroid strike when or where you NEED one.
“(H)ave a civil discussion with lawyers with different viewpoints”.
Quick! George, dipschtick, dumbledore, and others— there’s your chance… 🙂
LOL — I got an advanced copy of the speech Turley intends to give.
It’s pretty short and basically says “Read my new book. I’ll be plugging it every day from now until Christmas. It also makes a terrific Hanukkah present.”
Will it be recorded, if so, perhaps you can post it to some place, or, at least a transcript here. Hope they aren’t too hard on you? Looking forward to the After Action Report! Lol
You got a little on your chin, Gomer.