Symposium to Explore Themes From Helen Norton's Recent Book on Government Speech and the Constitution
Scholars will discuss the ideas explored in 勛圖厙 of Colorado Law School Professor Helen Norton's recent book, The Governments Speech and the Constitution, at the 勛圖厙 of Illinois Law Review Symposium on April 16. The symposium aims to influence the conversation about the important yet underexplored constitutional implications of the governments speech for years to come. Contributors include Erwin Chemerinsky, Danielle Keats Citron, Kate Shaw, Michael Kang, William Araiza, Alex Tsesis, Mary-Rose Papandrea, Wendy Parmet, Claudia Haupt, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Jacob Eisler, and Clifford Rosky.
Symposium Description
The governments speech is inevitable and often constitutionally valuable: even at its most infuriating, the governments speech informs the public about its governments principles and priorities, providing us with important information that helps us evaluate our government. The Supreme Court has thus appropriately recognized that the Free Speech Clause generally does not bar the governments ability to express its own views when doing the governments work.
But as the governments expressive capacities grow, so too does the potential for undermining others speech and distorting public discourse. Indeed, the government is unique among speakers because of its coercive power as sovereign, its considerable resources, its privileged access to key information, and its wide variety of speaking roles as policymaker, commander-in-chief, employer, educator, health care provider, property owner, and more. Yet, as Helen Norton suggests in her recent book on The Governments Speech and the Constitution, the Courts government speech doctrine to date remains dangerously incomplete in its failure to wrestle with the ways in which the governments speech sometimes affirmatively threatens specific constitutional values.
When we discuss constitutional law, we usually focus on the constitutional rules that apply to what the government does. Far less clear are the constitutional rules that apply to what the government says. This Symposium will engage a variety of questions explored in Nortons book: When does the speech of this unusually powerful speaker violate our constitutional rights and liberties? More specifically, when does the governments expression threaten liberty or equality? And under what circumstances does the Constitution prohibit our government from lying to us?
Agenda
(all times Central Time)
泭
10:00-10:05: Welcoming Remarks
Vikram D. Amar, 勛圖厙 of Illinois College of Law
10:05-10:15: Opening Keynote
Helen Norton, 勛圖厙 of Colorado Law School
10:15-11:20: Panel I
Panelists
Claudia E. Haupt and Wendy E. Parmet, Northeastern 勛圖厙 School of Law
Kate Shaw, Cardozo School of Law
Danielle K. Citron, 勛圖厙 of Virginia School of Law
Moderator
Jason Mazzone, 勛圖厙 of Illinois College of Law
11:20-11:30: Break
11:30-12:50: Panel II
Panelists
William Araiza, Brooklyn Law School
Mary-Rose Papandrea, UNC School of Law
Clifford Rosky, 勛圖厙 of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
Alexander Tsesis, Loyola 勛圖厙 Chicago School of Law
Moderator
Jason Mazzone, 勛圖厙 of Illinois College of Law
12:50-13:00: Break
13:00-14:00: Panel III
Panelists
Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley School of Law
Michael S. Kang, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, and Jacob Eisler, 勛圖厙 of Southampton Law School
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Stetson 勛圖厙 College of Law
Moderator
Jason Mazzone, 勛圖厙 of Illinois College of Law
.