Advertise on podcast: Free Speech Out Loud

O'Hare Truck Service, Inc. v. City of Northlake is read by Casey Mattox, the vice president for legal and judicial strategy at Americans for Prosperity. Legal Question: Whether government retaliation against a contractor or regular provider of services for the exercise of rights of political association or allegiance violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee. Action: The Court found that the independent contractor relationship between O'Hare and the City was sufficiently close to an employer-employee relationship to justify the recognition of a First Amendment right.  Mr. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:35 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on O’Hare, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud. Free Speech Out Loud is a project of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

This speech titled “Spirit of Liberty” was originally given by Judge Learned Hand in 1944 in celebration of I Am an American Day. For this recording the speech is read by Don Murphy.  For the text of the “Spirit of Liberty” speech visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Keyishian v. Board of Regents is read by Don Murphy.  Legal Question: Whether provisions of the Education Law and Civil Service Law requiring public servants to renounce Communism were overly broad and vague.  Action: The Court ruled in favor of the employees and held that the provisions at issue were unconstitutional as applied. Mr. Justice Brennan delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:58 Mr. Justice Clark, with whom Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice White join, dissenting, at 49:36 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Keyishian, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

This article titled “QUIET CAMPUSES: America’s 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech” was published on FIRE’s Newsdesk on February 2, 2022. View the article for all links to citations and related materials. Join FIRE’s Alumni Network. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

This article titled “From protests to the Supreme Court: How the Civil Rights Movement advanced First Amendment legal protections” by Jordan Howell was published on FIRE’s Newsdesk on January, 14 2022.  View the article for all links to citations and related materials.   Join FIRE’s Alumni Network. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

This article, titled “The Second Great Age of Political Correctness” by Greg Lukianoff was published in the January 2022 issue of Reason Magazine.  View the article for all links to citations and related materials.   Join FIRE’s Alumni Network. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

This article titled “Yale’s treatment of psych lecturer another step in continuing retreat from academic freedom” by Adam Goldstein and Peter Bonilla was published as part of FIRE’s Eternally Radical Idea column on December 6, 2021. View the article for all links to citations and related materials.   Join FIRE’s Alumni Network. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

This article titled “What does MIT stand for? Faculty, alumni want answers.” by Komi German was published to FIRE’s Newsdesk on December 1, 2021.  View the article for all links to citations and related materials.   Join FIRE’s Alumni Network. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Talley v. California is read by David Keating, President of the Institute for Free Speech. Legal Question: Whether a Los Angeles city ordinance forbidding distribution of anonymous handbills violated the First Amendment. Action: The ordinance was ruled void on its face and overbroad. Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the Court, at 01:32 Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring, at 14:26 Mr. Justice Clark, whom Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Whittaker join, dissenting, at 17:55 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Talley v. California, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Tinker v. Des Moines’ majority is read by Mary Beth Tinker, one of the students at the center of this case. The concurrences and dissents are read by Emma Camp, a rising senior at the University of Virginia. Legal Question: Whether the wearing of armbands by public school students as a form of symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment. Action: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands, overruling the Eighth Circuit. Mr. Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:58 Mr. Justice Stewart, concurring, at 26:49 Mr. Justice White, concurring, at 27:38 Mr. Justice Black, dissenting, at 28:10 Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting, at 47:42 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Tinker, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Whitney v. California’s concurrence is read by Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, and the majority opinion is read by Barrett Fife, a rising junior at William & Mary University. Legal Question: Whether California’s criminal syndicalism law that made it a crime to defend, advocate, or establish an organization committed to violent means of effecting government change violated the First Amendment. Action: The Court found that the act was constitutional and upheld Whitney’s conviction. Mr. Justice Sanford delivered the opinion of the Court., at 00:59 Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring., at 27:30 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Whitney v. California, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.

Legal Question: Whether a public university’s interest in maintaining a “strict separation of church and state” allows it to bar religious student groups from reserving facilities for worship. Action: The Court held that the policy was not content-neutral, violating the student group’s First Amendment rights. Mr. Justice Powell delivered the opinion of the Court, at 00:44 Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring, at 30:07 Mr. Justice White, dissenting, at 40:10 This opinion’s citations have been edited down for ease of listening. For more information, visit our explanation. For more on Widmar, visit FIRE’s First Amendment Library. For more episodes, visit thefire.org/outloud.