Your Cart is Empty
By Ethan Hicks ‘26
On Tuesday, March 21, Professor Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, and Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, sat down to discuss the history and modern state of free speech in America in their joint talk “Civil Liberties: On Campus and Beyond.” An engaged audience of students, faculty, and community members filled Lewis Auditorium to join George and Strossen for their fireside style chat hosted by Princetonians for Free Speech and Princeton Open Campus Coalition.
George offered a detailed and colorful history of Free Speech in America. He discussed why the Framers did not initially find a Bill of Rights necessary to the Constitution, because they believed the Constitution's limited enumerated powers protected citizens from encroachments upon their rights, and he suggested that the large size and extensive powers of the modern national government deviate from the Framers’ intentions. George further examined how the national government’s robust system of checks and balances protects freedom of speech, and the philosophical importance of diverse opinions in free democratic societies and institutions such as the United States and the Princeton academic community.
Strossen built upon many of George’s philosophical and historical arguments by drawing on her experience at the ACLU. Strossen focused on how the Fourteenth Amendment expanded the protections of the First Amendment to protect citizens from violations of their First Amendment rights by state and local governments. She further examined how legal action enforcing the First Amendment was not fully embraced until the 20th century despite its origin over 150 years earlier.
Strossen expanded the conversation about the modern state of free speech by claiming that meaningful free speech will not exist until private organizations such as social media platforms are no longer permitted to restrict speech. She claimed that at present, “you have no constitutional recourse against powerful social media platforms that are discriminating against or de-platforming certain ideas… you have no First Amendment recourse against so-called cancel culture.” Many audience members found her passionate rhetoric to be a call to action.
In the spirit of Strossen’s message, several of the questions posed by the audience asked George and Strossen about how freedom of expression can be improved in private and public institutions. The speakers suggested a variety of changes including the expansion of groups such as the Academic Freedom Alliance and stronger adherence to free speech ideals such as the Chicago Principles.
Ethan Hicks is a freshman at Princeton from Perry, Ohio
On November 12, former ACLU Legal Director David Cole delivered the annual Tanner Lecture on Human Values. His talk, entitled “A Defense of Free Speech from Its Progressive Critics,” drew a crowd to the Friend Center. Cole has litigated several major First Amendment cases and currently serves as a law professor at Georgetown. A self-identified progressive, Cole explicated an argument in favor of the First Amendment.
Cole outlined the main progressive critiques of the First Amendment. “What unites these critiques is the sense that the First Amendment is too protective at the cost of another very important value in our society: equality.” He also acknowledged the progressive skepticism of free speech’s “core demand” of neutrality – the idea that the government “must be neutral as to the content and viewpoint of speech when it is regulating private speakers.”
On Jan. 2, the Office of the Vice President for Campus Life released a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding a new University policy regulating audio and visual recording. The policy classifies any recording made at events deemed private — where not all participants have consented — as “secret or covert,” placing such recordings in violation of University rules.
However, recording at public events, such as advertised public speaker events, is permitted unless the speaker, performer, or party hosting the event explicitly states otherwise. “The policy does not cover meetings open to all current members of the resident University community or to the public,” according to the FAQ website.
Last month’s issue of the Princeton Alumni Weekly (PAW) fawns over Michael Park ’98, a right-wing lawyer and, since 2018, a U.S. circuit judge. Park’s portrait commands the cover, while the accompanying long-form profile, titled “The Contender,” speculates that he could become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court. The author is P.G. Sittenfeld ’07.
But Sittenfeld is not just any old journalist. Last May, President Donald Trump pardoned Sittenfeld, a one-time rising star in Cincinnati politics, following his conviction on federal bribery and extortion charges in 2022. Sittenfeld, a Democrat, owes his freedom to Trump — the man who nominated his subject Park to his judgeship, and the man with the power to elevate Park further to the nation’s highest court. Nowhere does PAW disclose this striking conflict of interest.
