Every indexed document

who have been invited to speak at universities

I tried to get the Southern California branch of the ACLU to apply these same guidelines to another case involving the disruption of a speaker who had been invited by a university—this time the University of California at Irvine

to prevent him from speaking at all—then it is the Civil Liberties Union’s position that some discipline would be appropriate.”

that although there is a constitutional right to heckle speakers (at least in some context)

it soon reached the Faculty Committee that was considering the Franklin case.

their numbers and influence grew and they received a degree of legitimacy they had never previously had.

the speaker so deeply upsets or offends the person (or persons) to whom he is speaking that he reacts to the speech by attacking the speaker. This comes under the legal rubric of “fighting words”—words that cause the listener to fight back....

view or hear in his home or in an enclosed area

Congress must have the power to make some laws banning the disclosure of some secrets for some time. Finally

but it could not come to any agreement. The “N” word itself could not be prohibited because a black professor had written a brilliant book entitled “Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word”. We tried to define the circumstances und...

” I replied. “That’s why I want a code. I don’t trust the dean – or anyone else – to decide which speech should be prohibited.”

one of the libertarian student members said in frustration.

because it provides advanced fair warning and an opportunity to challenge the provisions of the code before they are enforced. (That’s why I also favor a narrow code criminalizing the publication of only the most dangerous state secrets).

I have surprised both my supporters and detractors by calling for precise and narrow “speech codes” on campuses. My reasoning is simple: censorship is inevitable on all university campuses in extreme situations; if a professor used the “N”....

railing against visitor rules and curfews

and a heavy burden should be placed on those who would censor to demonstrate with relative certainty that the speech at issue

for much the same reason I favor precise and narrow national security codification. As I will now explain

there would be few left. The New York Times and its publishers

it has also condemned the selective manner in which it was enforced against certain journalists and newspapers but not others. If there are to be any restrictions of freedom in the press

it will have far too much power over the content of what the media reports. 48 The First Amendment recognizes no distinction between the patriotic and unpatriotic