First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams reflected on the protection of free speech in the United States, reminding the University of Rhode Island to judge a nation’s freedoms by the reality of its government’s actions in a Monday lecture.
Abrams has argued more than 13 cases in front of the Supreme Court, representing clients in landmark cases regarding freedom of speech, including New York Times Co. v. United States in 1971. The Supreme Court sided with The New York Times.
“That decision is unique in comparison in every western country that I’ve sought to check it with,” Abrams said.
In an example of the First Amendment’s strength, Abrams cited Bridges v. California, a 1941 Supreme Court ruling that voided a contempt of court citation against the Los Angeles Times. The LA Times published an editorial advising a California judge to deny probation to two union leaders convicted of assaulting non-union workers, according to Abrams.
The ruling was met with angry dissent claiming it gave the press too much influence over the courts, according to Abrams. The press is still prohibited from weighing in on court rulings in countries such as England, due to this precedent.
In some countries, private citizens can go to court to remove records from platforms such as Google that they feel is undeservingly harmful to their reputation, according to Abrams. The United States has yet to see cases regarding the issue, but is unlikely to order platforms like Google to remove records.
“My view is that the court would say–and I think they should–that that’s not constitutional,” Abrams said.
Eritrea and North Korea are among the lowest ranking countries in the world for protections of free speech, according to Abrams. He read from the speech laws in these countries, asking the audience to evaluate them.
“Countries ought not to be judged simply by the language that they put in their constitutions, but the reality of how they behave,” Abrams said.
Professors, students and faculty brought questions to Abrams following the lecture.
URI Journalism and Public Relations Department Chair Dan Hunt asked Abrams what he believes is contributing to the recent decline in free speech rights and what he finds to be the path forward.
There has not been a change in First Amendment rights but an increase of government bodies claiming information is too harmful to publish, according to Abrams.
The increase of generative technologies are contributing to disinformation, but its use can still be protected as political speech, according to Abrams.
“I’m not just speaking of an AI issue, I’m talking about an explosion of new technology which leads to new issues of this sort about what is reality and what is not, and what may the law do that is consistent with the First Amendment,” Abrams said.
News publications are less financially capable of fighting lawsuits than they used to be, weakening their abilities to resist intimidation, according to Abrams.
“What we would at least agree with each other is the press is less important all the time, and in a way less threatening because of that, but also more inviting as a target,” Abrams said.
Computer science professor Alina Barnett said the lecture gave helpful context to American speech laws.
“I knew [the US] had really unique press laws here,” Barnett said. “I didn’t know anything about the much further back cases that he was talking about, so that was really interesting to hear.”
The Christiane Amanpour Lecture is an annual presentation by the Harrington School of Communication and Media, named after URI alumna and CNN Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour, who introduced Abrams in a video from her news desk shown at the lecture.
The full lecture can be found on the Harrington School’s YouTube channel.
