I’m so happy to hear justice was done in Surprise. I own land in Surprise and have plans to build a house there in the next few years. I was appalled at this story. People in the US should not be arrested for criticizing the government.
Professor Mchangama’s book (Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media) and his related podcast (Clear and Present Danger) were outstanding! I have re-read and re-listened to parts repeatedly. About Professor Franks, though, I think something is off. I haven’t read Professor Mchangama’s thread on X (so far, I don’t use X), about Professor Franks. But if the substance of his critique was represented in the prior piece, above re: Professor Franks, then something is seriously off.
I'm still trying to understand the source of the hostility to Professor Franks. I heard what she said and thought she was inviting people to think bigger and better than the mere First Amendment. I didn't see anything wrong that she said about anything. I did see some things that were wrong with the prior piece's mischaracterization of Professor Franks's statements.
The first was the first sentence in the prior piece. It clearly did not quote Professor Franks. She simply did not (in the embedded clip) say any such thing. But it is understandable that the use of quotation marks in the prior piece misled people to conclude otherwise:
When powerful people tell you that “freedom of speech exists only to protect the powerful,” you should probably be suspicious.
The second was a naked presumption in the prior piece:
Franks posits that we should protect “fearless speech” (that is, speech the oppressed use to challenge their oppressors), and not “reckless speech,” which is, presumably, everything that isn’t fearless.
I did not hear Professor Franks advocate elimination of protection (e.g., under the First Amendment) for "reckless speech." I also did not presume that contrasting "fearless speech" with "reckless speech" advocated official restriction. I thought it advocated self-restraint. I thought that, being a professor speaking to young people, Professor Franks was encouraging students to be fearless but not foolish. The line between fearless and foolish (or reckless) speech opposing entrenched power obviously is not an easy line to draw. But I saw no reason presume that Professor Franks would advocate giving such power to public officials. One of her primary points was that officials with power abuse it to repress viewpoints that they consider offensive.
I’m so happy to hear justice was done in Surprise. I own land in Surprise and have plans to build a house there in the next few years. I was appalled at this story. People in the US should not be arrested for criticizing the government.
Professor Mchangama’s book (Free Speech: A History from Socrates to Social Media) and his related podcast (Clear and Present Danger) were outstanding! I have re-read and re-listened to parts repeatedly. About Professor Franks, though, I think something is off. I haven’t read Professor Mchangama’s thread on X (so far, I don’t use X), about Professor Franks. But if the substance of his critique was represented in the prior piece, above re: Professor Franks, then something is seriously off.
I'm still trying to understand the source of the hostility to Professor Franks. I heard what she said and thought she was inviting people to think bigger and better than the mere First Amendment. I didn't see anything wrong that she said about anything. I did see some things that were wrong with the prior piece's mischaracterization of Professor Franks's statements.
The first was the first sentence in the prior piece. It clearly did not quote Professor Franks. She simply did not (in the embedded clip) say any such thing. But it is understandable that the use of quotation marks in the prior piece misled people to conclude otherwise:
When powerful people tell you that “freedom of speech exists only to protect the powerful,” you should probably be suspicious.
The second was a naked presumption in the prior piece:
Franks posits that we should protect “fearless speech” (that is, speech the oppressed use to challenge their oppressors), and not “reckless speech,” which is, presumably, everything that isn’t fearless.
I did not hear Professor Franks advocate elimination of protection (e.g., under the First Amendment) for "reckless speech." I also did not presume that contrasting "fearless speech" with "reckless speech" advocated official restriction. I thought it advocated self-restraint. I thought that, being a professor speaking to young people, Professor Franks was encouraging students to be fearless but not foolish. The line between fearless and foolish (or reckless) speech opposing entrenched power obviously is not an easy line to draw. But I saw no reason presume that Professor Franks would advocate giving such power to public officials. One of her primary points was that officials with power abuse it to repress viewpoints that they consider offensive.