19 October 2010. John Young agreed to speak for Wikileaks if nobody else would. He will outline what comes after the First Amendment's defeat.
Wikileaks Hook - The Constitution and National Security: The First Amendment Under Attack
[Draft Agenda, 18 October 2010]
Friday, November 5th, 2010
9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.
9 a.m. Welcome and Introductions
9:15-9:35 Opening Remarks
What are the wider implications, for both national security and freedom of information, of the recent WikiLeaks disclosures and the prosecution of Bradley Manning? How does this differ from the kind of whistleblowing engaged in by an earlier generation of leakers, including Daniel Ellsberg? When should we refuse to prosecute insiders who, driven by moral scruples, contribute to democratic accountability and the public record by revealing information that has been classified for questionable reasons? How do searches for the sources of leaks affect the operation of government agencies? Can government secrecy survive the age of digitalization and "push the send button" massive document transfers?
Panelists: Barton Gellman, Walter Pincus, Dana Priest, John Young
11-12:15 On the Matter of Free Speech and Incitement
The alleged spread of Internet recruitment by terrorist organizations has put enormous pressure on the classic distinction between advocacy and incitement, encouraging a departure from the Brandenburg rule that government can punish inflammatory speech only if it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. Will counterterrorism efforts be genuinely impeded without a broadening of the category of criminal incitement to encompass the encouragement of non-imminent lawless action? How is Islam being misused by online recruiters for jihad? How do the U.S. parameters for incitement in differ from those in other countries?
Panelists: Niall Brennan, Glenn Greenwald, Burt Neuborne, Geoffrey
12:15-1:30 Lunch Break
1:45-2:15 Afternoon Keynote
2:15-3:30 Humanitarian Law Project and the Issue of the Freedom of Speech
In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for the government to block speech and other forms of advocacy supporting designated foreign terrorist organizations, even if the aim is to support such a group's peaceful or humanitarian actions. Is the cause of counterterrorism abetted by forbidding American citizens from helping foreign groups designated as terrorist from articulating their grievances and advocating their causes in non-violent ways? Does the criminalization of speech in this area feed American misunderstanding of the grievances that drive some individuals to anti-American violence? Is there something wrong with the one-size-fits-all approach of the "terrorist" designation, tending as it does to conflate pure terrorist groups like al Qaeda with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah that resort to terrorism while engaged in numerous non-terrorist activities, such as building and running hospitals? To what extent has religious philanthropy, and religious obligation, particularly in respect to zakat and Muslim charities, been threatened?
Panelists: Joshua Dratel, Peter Margulies, Gabor Rona, Amanda
3:30-5:00 Islam in America: Protecting the Rights and Liberties of Americans
Recently, a number of critics have implied that Islam does not deserve the protections of the First Amendment. The Free Exercise Clause provides a safe haven for religious activity that it would otherwise be legal for the government to prohibit. Meanwhile, opposition to an Islamic community center in downtown Manhattan and mosques elsewhere in the country raises questions about just what protections Muslims in America are receiving. How, in the coming decade, is struggle with Islamist terrorism likely to affect freedom of worship for Muslims in America? Will the imperative to vet the beliefs of imams brought into American prisons violate the principle of government non-entanglement with religion? Finally, should Koran desecration and burning be constitutionally protected as freedom of speech, despite its obviously harmful effects on social comity? America's robust tradition of lending legal protection to offensive speech developed in a "local" world where those who heard the speech were socialized in a shared belief that offensive speech had to be tolerated. Should American hate speech law take account of the global communications revolution, which can bring acts such as Koran burning to the attention of people with very different traditions and sensibilities, including those who may want to do grievous harm to American interests?
Panelists: Samuel Rascoff, David Lachmann, Marci Hamilton