 Time once again for Tuesdays with Corey Professor Corey Brett Schneider teaches constitutional law at Brown And I've somehow convinced him to come on this show once a week to give me a five million dollar legal education That's how expensive a law education has gotten. It has doubled since the last time the professor has been on my show That's a special price for you five million My mother says I'm disrespectful to you she listens and she says You need to call him Pontiff not Corey my professor. She said Any man with your credentials and patience? Is it should be the Pope today? We're gonna talk about libel laws and President Trump and the Constitution? Your brief your friend of the court brief on the travel ban opposing it first up Ryan Seacrest has been named Kelly Rippa's co-host On Monday, what are your thoughts professors? Is this good for the Constitution of Ryan Seacrest? Is he doing too much? I just love that you begin with the most important pressing issues of the day And I have three points about Is there is there the first amendment is Is there ever an overabundance of speech with Ryan Seacrest? The guy has a radio show TV shows that is gonna be on Kelly Is there any way to protect the American people from too much of one person speaking? Well, I don't know I guess the thing that the first amendment protects the most is viewpoint And so I don't know if what he's saying has is enough to qualify as a viewpoint So that might be our first question, but I really listened to him so little But maybe three seconds at the most they could not give an informed opinion. Hey and culture Yeah, I wanted to clarify something. Yeah, we found out that and Cultures speech she was charging $20,000 to speak at Berkeley And it was being paid for by young Americans for freedom and bridge USA Outside outside groups coughing up the money. Yeah, is that still a first amendment issue? That's interesting, I mean, I think it is because the it was still an invitation by Well, I I'd have to think about it But the fact that it was money that was being funded to a Berkeley group I think that would be enough to say that the state is involved that there was state action and the Retraction I guess to now that I think about it of the Invitation if it came from Berkeley rather than from that group then that's enough for the state action I mean the institution was involved and I think that that makes it a first amendment first amendment case I hate to give anything for this somewhere else. I hate to give and culture more time than she deserves Yeah Here's the issue though. Let me do this. Let's turn it into a hypothetical. Sure. You have a state University, right? There is a group. Let's just say young Americans for freedom. It's a right-wing Republican Organization on campus and they invite Ann Coulter and they're paying her through outside sources According to the first amendment it's a first amendment issue because it's state funding Suppressing speech Yeah, the question. I mean Berkeley gets all sorts of money in donations by from private institutions I think I mean some of the money is public and then I know they do fundraising or they have a nonprofit arm but the question in the case would be whether or not there was a government actor involved in the decision to revoke the invitation and I think here Regardless of where the money is coming from the institution Berkeley did get involved in in that question So so that likely I mean we'd have to see more about the details But would be enough and I think too it's important You know, I think I explained this last time that the worry is about suppressing private individual speech So if there was a restriction on the ability of a private a student group to Invite her to campus the worry is that the government Berkeley is intervening in the private Individuals or private groups ability to hear somebody or to invite them And that's where the real First Amendment worry comes if it was a you know commencement Well, Ann Coulter received an award or not or something officially conferred by Berkeley You might be able to argue that this is Berkeley conferring an honor or the university speaking would be a way to put it in the technical terms of the university and Of the First Amendment and when the university is speaking or when the state is speaking It does have the ability to pick and choose who to invite or who not to invite Because the idea is that the university or the state is trying to express its own values But this doesn't look like that kind of case. It looks like it was a private group within Berkeley or or student group and and the government does not have the ability to suppress the Ideas or the invitations were the expression of private individuals or including students Let me if you don't mind sure I want to push back on this a little because Obviously without the First Amendment I'd be nothing why I am nothing but I'd be even more of nothing You are something. Thank you college campuses if if I Fire a teacher on the Chancellor of Berkeley. It's a state school, right and I'm also the president of Harvard which is not a state school, but it does receive federal funding Same scenario Berkeley Harvard ones a state school ones Supposedly a private college. There is a professor who is teaching Climate change denial mm-hmm at Berkeley. I fire him Mm-hmm, and I say you are teaching something that's inaccurate Can he challenge me and say I'm violating his First Amendment rights in the Harvard case, you mean it well Berkeley Yeah, yeah, I mean teacher firing is a different sort of case than Then then student or private speech because they're an employee of the university as opposed to somebody who's just attending But yes, I there are protections certainly that are afforded university professors and Although it's a different kind of case that because Berkeley is a state institution the First Amendment applies And you could bring a First Amendment action In a private university as you said the structure is different now There are other protections for tenure for instance. There are contractual protections that come With with tenure for in other areas of law that might protect your free speech depending on the on the university The university might have promised you basically free speech rights with tenure So, you know free speech has a lot of different ways to there are a lot of different ways to defend it legally and but in the in the Public institution case the the Constitution applies directly. So the First Amendment might be your best option And and so at Harvard The same thing stands you can fire a professor or a teacher because you believe it's You're free to fire somebody for teaching the wrong things. Well, thankfully private universities and The AUP the organization of professors have lobbied for protections generally for professors Part of it is that there's a norm of free expression and free inquiry that comes from the profession of being a professor It doesn't make sense to have a university if there isn't Free speech and free thought in academic inquiry and that also I think includes the ability to go beyond that If you're a university professor now there are different ways to get that protection legally but One might come with the contractual obligations of the university when it comes to tenure But it's not we're not in the realm of the First Amendment anymore in the same way that we are in the case of a public institution But thankfully there are rights of professors against Universities legally as well and private institutions. It's just a different area of law And it's a good thing. I mean you can't have a university in my opinion without having free thought and the ability of a professor to honestly say what their what their research Demands They say and where their inquiry leads them is a state university allowed to ban somebody From the premises is the chancellor allowed to say I do not want this person on campus because they're not They're not they're not a student And they do not reflect the values of this university So I am banning and colter from stepping foot inside or on the property of berkeley He I think they do do that. I mean if Certainly like from the dorms or from the buildings or part of the campus is private um The university I think has the ability to Control who's there and who's not um for the purposes of of doing the business of the university The worry here is that the you know, this isn't just that they were worried that she was going to rob somebody The worry was that she was uh disinvited because of the content or the viewpoint of uh, what she says And you know, it is complicated because they were worried about security Um, and so we'd have to see whether or not it was impossible to have her on campus Only because of the security concern But it you know, what's worrying to me about the case is that if she was banned no matter how vile her views are I have the ability and a student has the ability to Hear them and if the government in this case the institution of berkeley was preventing her from coming on campus Because of the her viewpoint If that's what the inquiry revealed then then that would be a very serious violation of the first amendment I hate what an colter says. I hate the content of her views And I think she's deeply wrong, but she has first amendment rights just like everyone In this country she has first amendment rights. So is it fair to say that A fraternity Invited her to speak at berkeley. Yeah, is that pretty much what this group is? I don't think so. I thought they were a private Conservative group that was devoted to discussions of politics. I'm saying the the organization of students at berkeley who invited her to speak Yeah, they're for all intents and purposes a club on campus, right? Correct And are the clubs do they have to if there are there are official clubs at the university they do Have to apply to be officially sanctioned by the university or can anybody set up a club? Uh, it I don't know the details of this club But there are clubs that are often received funds from a university from a student group and a lot of first amendment cases involve issues around that A group seeks to become an official club and is denied or But yeah, I'm not I really don't know the details of this one, but right. I'm just we're talking I'm talking about a hypothetical right case so If let's say The school newspaper. There's an official school newspaper at berkeley They invite and culture to speak I hope actually that's a bad example because that opens up a whole other can of worms, but I guess the point I'm making is or the question I'm asking is Let's say there's a rugby team Right, and they invite a stripper So their fraternity to Strip And I'm the chancellor and I say no you can't hire a stripper Is that presented by first amendment rights? There's money, you know, they're giving her money. That's freedom of speech now All right, there is a difference in the first amendment between expressing a political view or an opinion The technical term that the court uses is a viewpoint Uh, and certain kinds of content um And restrictions on viewpoints tend to be disallowed restrictions on obscenity in particular and That case seems to certainly be in the realm of obscenity Are often more more tolerated. So I I think you're There might be a case for the group that wants to involve invite Exotic dancers to campus or something, but it's weaker than it is in this case. I mean this is really about If it turns out that the worry about culture was her views That's worrying because the the whole idea of the I mean go back to the core idea of why we have this protection in the first place It's that we want to allow for the protection of all opinions to Be able to say them to hear them to have the free Inquiry that is necessary in a democracy and that's why it's not a just a sort of random amendment the idea is that without being able to hear all viewpoints and Argue and say what you want including the ability to criticize the government criticize the constitution On all sides, then we don't live in a democracy anymore. Right. So that's why the rule is so strong in protection of Censorship against viewpoints. Yeah, I you know more about I you know, this isn't false humility professor, but you know more about the constitution than I do I know it's hard to believe Men's men's ray, and you know more about the comedy world and no, I know Men's is it called men's ray? What does it have? What does men's ray mean? Uh men's ray is usually in the criminal context the mental state that's involved in a crime or Okay, it's just a term for mental state if We kind of know that this wasn't about Ann Coulter speaking the same way Milo Yappinapolis the Breitbart editor who spoke or try to speak at Berkeley This isn't about freedom of speech It is about freedom of speech But the people who hired them to go to Berkeley Were screaming fire in a crowded movie theater, right? Um, I don't know. I I you know, there is the security concern and certainly there was violence when um around some of these incidents but I think that We have to you know, the whole idea of university is that we allow free inquiry And if it's possible to provide security and also to have controversial speakers on campus Then Berkeley I think is obligated to do that and they have a security challenge that they have to figure out But it's not acceptable to say that we're not going to have uh very conservative even fascist speakers Have the right of free speech Because it's too dangerous I I think that would really give up on the idea That I as I said isn't just central to the first amendment But central to the idea of democracy and even if private universities aren't bound by the first amendment I think the very idea of a university Uh requires that kind of free inquiry and that they also have to figure out how to meet those security concerns We can't just give up on the idea that you have the right to say what you want and to hear everything Because there are challenges of security that those are going to arise in in a tumultuous time But those are the times when it's most important that we protect all viewpoints Free and let me get back to free inquiry. It wasn't free inquiry. She was charging $20,000 And it was being paid for by outside sources. Yeah, who are trying to prove a point right about The politically correct movement. They they picked Berkeley as their beach head right As I remember high school in order to have a club you needed a faculty advisor right To well to reflect the the values of the institution and justify the purpose Right as I see the enculter case at Berkeley These were just a bunch of kids without I believe without a professor behind them without a Berkeley representative just a bunch of Fish out of water at Berkeley. They decide to be conservatives and they Instead of studying they decide To let guys like David Horowitz or young american for freedom pay and culture to show up on campus It has nothing to do with free inquiry Well, and it's not the university and it's not the university. There's no professors. Just a bunch of kids Yeah, I mean we talked about this last time I think part of the idea of the university is that you allow students the freedom to Have access to information and to ideas Now Berkeley, I'm sure like all universities has a process of applying for speakers or applying for speaker funds or applying for permits And if you could show in a way that had nothing to do with their opinions that they were violating those rules That would be one thing, but I haven't heard that in this case I think what they're worried about and you know, they would have a serious claim if this is true Is that they're being Limited and their ability to do what any other kid on campus could do because of the Content of their views and as I said, even even though I deeply disagree with them I think they've got a right to uh to hear whatever they want Without censorship that doesn't mean that they can violate the rules of how you invite speakers But but the university is restricted from doing is saying you you can have your speaker because of the The viewpoint that she has or that you have now again, too I mean, I I see your point, you know, I I don't like what Ann Coulter says one bit. I think she's Way off Not just conservative, but she says things that Fundamentally disrespect the idea that were equals under law regardless of race Her attacks on birthright citizenship. I I think you know go beyond The pale of reasonable inquiry But there are ways to express that short of saying you can't speak I think you can bring her to campus and have the university even if it's an official voice have other speakers Criticize condemn her or you can have protests on campus As I think I said last time, you know if Ann Coulter would have come to brown I wouldn't impose her invite She would have a right to speak if a student group went through the process of inviting her But I wouldn't go in to listen to her I would stand outside in protest and I would hope that the university president Would do the same and that we would make a statement as part of the brown community Defending her right to be there but also to to to criticize her as a consumer as a consumer You send your child off to college Why are the children in charge? I mean, you know, we're not just selling Some ready-made thing that you can buy and you know, we give you a degree at the end but we're trying to create an atmosphere on college campuses of Serious thought and to teach people to think in the end not just to tell them what to think And if you don't give them that actual ability to make mistakes to hear of different views Then you know the the brand is killed what you're buying becomes No, no, I just you watch a video. You know, I went to see neil diamond Yeah, and he sings sweet caroline. He starts to sing sweet caroline and then he points the microphone at the audience And then we're supposed to sing sweet caroline and I started screaming nobody could hear me. No neil diamond I paid Right. I paid to see you sing sweet everybody be quiet I'm not interested in hearing the audience sing sweet caroline. You sing it. That's why I'm here And they escorted me out and I screamed first amendment rights And it was they used the fifth amendment eminent domain to build The stadium where he was singing but the case was thrown out of Because I did feel it was government oppression of freedom of speech I should be able to insist that neil diamond Sing sweet caroline by himself Without my having to hear herb glasman Screaming it into my right ear. But the point I'm making is You go off to college. Yeah, I want to hear neil diamond I don't want to hear the the kids yeah, um I guess, you know One one response is to pull it back to what you and I are doing we've called this you've referred to the segment At some point as Corey teaches david now there could be two ways of doing it. I could talk for an hour Not stop you could take notes and I could see if you understood what I said in the end But isn't that better or we could go back and forth and you could say things about You know kids on campus and we can do what's really more of a Socratic discussion and I you know, what do you learn more from my senses? If I were to give you a grade, you know, you've gotten a lot out of this You've seen the nuances of it. You've pushed back. You've asked great questions. You read your case Last week and did that beautifully. It's the interaction that matters. Well, if you try to put that on the grand scale of the university That's also how you Um, how you learn and you know, that's the way to do it So slippery slope. I hate and I've never seen nail diamond. I don't think I would pay that honestly He's great. Maybe that I know I may be okay. Oh, no, no, he is He is neil diamond is great He he really is now we're outside my area. Okay so Slippery slope. I'm getting tired of the slippery slope argument because what it implies is that as a nation, we're too stupid To understand nuance, but law as we've just Demonstrated is all about nuance the first of there is nuance to the first amendment Right, correct. Yeah, I mean, there's a whole other area too that I was going to bring in that, you know, it's not that you were Bringing up something that's irrelevant. There's a whole set of cases that are about the right of clubs to exist or not exist on campus Um, it's different than I think the enculter inquiry, but you you know, there is a very subtle Area of law. So for instance in california, I know a lot of your listeners, especially a radio show Or in california, there was a case involving hastings law school And hastings law school Had a club on campus an official club called the christian legal society And the christian legal society didn't allow Gay gave students to be executive officers in the organization. They couldn't be vice president or president And the university said that they were basically going to revoke their status as an official Student group now that turned out to be a very complicated case in the end the hastings won the case For a variety of reasons But I guess that to me the way that This the simplest way to put what the court should have said at least they said something very Complicated but is that you know, sometimes when it comes to the funds and what's being supported Um, the university has a right to just promote its own values Now if christian legal society had been kicked off campus or denied their free speech rights or to say what They think a good christian lawyer is and how that relates to issues of gay rights That would have been I think a blatant violation But because the case was about official student status and about funding I think hastings actually did the right thing. So another way to put it is imagine that berkeley would say You know what? It's one thing if you want to invite anculture to campus But we're not going to use government funds to pay for it I think in my view they would have been well within their rights to do that because they're they'd be saying We don't want to fund anculture. Now. There are cases to the contrary. There's a case at the university of virginia That seems to say the opposite where a student group that had religious Content in their publications was denied funds and they were able to win that on first amendment grounds But that's really a kind of cutting edge area of law In this book I mentioned last time when the state speaks what should it say I talk about this Sort of divide between the idea that sometimes the state is acting as a speaker as a Defender of its own values and the idea that we can have viewpoint neutrality and the protection for all viewpoints In what we say. So, you know, there is nuance and you were capturing it by by talking about the funding issues in a lot of ways Let's let's talk about donald trump and and libel laws. Yeah trump has a a chief of staff named rinse previs He is a murderer. He's killed 14 male prostitutes he was a nazi out he walks through the White house in full ss regalia and he said over the weekend that His administration is looking into Opening up libel laws Oh, I just love how you make yourself the test case He just volunteered I did make it clear that i'm not a member of the bar and that i'm not going to be defending you right in any of these cases well, uh I love it, but you know, also rinse previs you're doing it rinse rinse previs who has been writing checks To the hungarian nazi party For 20 years once to open up libel laws and make it easier to Sue the journalists and media personalities Do you want to make it clear to listeners that you're you're doing a subtle thing with the uh Facts there and that you you you're helping yourself to the protection of the first amendment or Right, I mean, that's what you're doing. I don't know what I don't know what you're talking about. He's a bad guy, maybe One of evidence that he's well. I mean if you think Calling somebody who killed 14 male prostitutes in april And then ate them if you think that's a bad guy I mean, I think that's more. I think it's worse than bad But if you think rinse previs a notorious we are we are in the cutting edge of the first amendment right here Thank god for uh the case i'm gonna tell you about because that's your best chance at Defense against the libel laws What is the fact that it's clearly satire and I'll add that disclaimer What is the difference between David Feldman a comedy satire show not a factual news inquiry. Thank you hustler magazine, I believe Uh hustler, I think hustler Packaging defended my right to say that What is the difference between slander and libel? um Libel, I think is uh, boy. No, I'm gonna have to look this up. Maybe we can cut it if I'm wrong, but libel is a written uh false statement Published false statement and and and libel is saying a false statement with the intent to hurt somebody to damage the reputation Right. Well, that's the issue. So, you know, you just now Likely Committed. Well, I guess he didn't publish it in print but slander that you made a false out about uh about uh Prevus uh satire of course, but the um question that trump and his uh brought up over the summer and now his staff is actively pursuing it's a frightening thing Is the question of whether or not if we go back to a case called new york times versus Sullivan Whether or not the supreme court was correct to say that when it comes to public figures And issues of public concern Uh that we weren't going to allow libel lawsuits to just go through If there was a little bit of falsehood or a small mistake in there So in particular in the during the civil rights movement There was a strategy to try to bankrupt civil rights organizations on the grounds that uh They were occasionally taking out ads that had falsehoods in them. Right. So in particular, I think in new york times versus Sullivan There was an issue about a publication Of one of these ads that talked about how many times martin Luther king had been arrested and the um claim in the libel suit that was brought against the um civil rights organization was that they got the number wrong now Technically, you know, if you get the number wrong about the number of times that king was arrested You that's a falsehood. That's not true And you know very strict libel regime where any libel Was uh subject to suit you could be sued for libel Now the thought of the court and this was a I think important thought was you don't want to allow that You want to protect small mistakes because if anybody can be sued if they say just a small thing wrong They're going to be afraid to speak out again in public matters against public officials and the whole idea Of the first amendment is we want more rather than less speech So it's not that they abolish the rule of libel when it comes to public officials But they required actual malice that you really try to hurt somebody in your falsehood and and um In finding for the civil rights organization They protected uh use the first amendment to protect a wider amount of of speech Yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to I want to this is important to me It's the case is so what is that sullivan new york times versus sullivan new york times versus sullivan as I remember As you just said there was a civil rights organization that published a full page ad in the new york times accusing a sheriff in the south right of Targeting martin luther king and they got the number wrong, but it wasn't the new york times The number of arrests right the the myth about Sullivan versus the new york times is that they were suing the new york times for its Reportage by them. That's reporting Right professor report. Thank you I just you know good word. Thank you so So they were defending the the full page ad that the new york times printed right And it gave the the ruling from I believe the warren court gave the new york times an all journalist after that the right To be factually incorrect as long as it wasn't malicious right exactly Yes, and the idea is that you know if you know if it might be a different case if I wrote something about You know a co-worker or somebody that had no public presence And published it online and said something just false about them They could probably sue me on grounds that you know, I was negligent should have known that that I was writing something that was wrong Or that I was in fact wrong But in this case the reason why it's a first amendment case is that there's an interest In allowing for even false speech if it's not intentional. We're not trying to hurt somebody In order to uh, what to make it comfortable incentivize speaking out about public officials How much of sullivan versus the new york times? Is the One of one of the backbones to citizens united that that decision was that cited? um, I would assume it would be because Yeah, you Citizens united and I guess it was 2010 the roberts court said that money is speech because you need money to buy A full page ad in the new york times I see, uh, I think it's just a different area of law Um, all right, that's really an issue about whether or not private corporations can spend money from their own treasury On campaign statements. This is a separate issue. That's about whether or not you're going to be subject to laws Private laws which one person can sue another for saying a falsehood And yeah, I don't think okay, then looking at an organization like bright Bart news, right Which can be malicious or the national inquirer Although I think a lot of their stuff is accurate Can you sue? Well, you can sue the the national inquirer and win Yeah, if you could show, I mean, you know, they're really to what you were doing with satire, but if I Um, say that a public official is having an affair in order to try to hurt them when I know it's not true And i'm only doing it to try to hurt them Uh, they probably can and I do this in print. They could probably bring Uh, uh libel law, uh libel lawsuit against me But what this protects are these sort of more small mistakes So, you know, think about every time somebody writes something about trump if he could find something about the number of hotels that he owns or The amount of money made on a deal and it was reported in a way that wasn't exactly 100 accurate and he could sue That would scare people news organizations would be really reluctant to report on his finances or try to, you know, give Uh answers about basic things to do with his presidency or his background Uh, because they'd fear of being sued by him But what new york times versus selvin does is it says, you know what if you make a small mistake and you didn't weren't intentionally trying to hurt trump, uh, but you're being honest and you're reporting, um, or even if you were You know negligent, but you weren't trying to hurt him We're gonna protect you and the idea is what we really care about is getting the information out there So that citizens can make decisions for themselves in the democratic process How calculated is rush lemba? How calculated is anculture because here's what they do They play fast and loose With the truth and they make wild accusations and then they hide behind the cloak Of satire Talk to me for a second about jerry fallwell versus larry flint And is rush lemba I don't know you can't go in their head, but are they because they always fall back on i was joking i was That was a joke that was a joke when they get cornered. They claim to be comedians talk to me about jerry fallwell versus larry flint and my right to Make jokes about rince previs even though i really i mean i'm malicious i i do I i want people to believe That he's this way. I mean i hate donald trump Let me rephrase the question. What is malicious intent? I would like people To despise rince previs i think nobody should ever hire him again I think he's a disgrace my jokes do come from malice Right, but you're not trying to spread the lie of you know Whatever the nonsense that you said was in in an effort to get people to really believe it You were engaging in Um, and I hope you agree with Well, no, I really don't want to see this guy come after you you're engaging in a satire Am I? Yes, am I yes? We don't have any evidence and you know that you don't have any evidence of Him rocking around a nazi uniform you imagine that and it's funny But it's you know the radio equivalent of what Larry flint would do when he depicted in hustler magazine In a parody The jerry fall well as as being drunk. It's not that You know, he was trying to say this guy's really a drunk He was making fun of him and what the court said in a very sensible decision I believe it was unanimous and hustler magazine versus fall well Um is just following up on that idea that we're talking about with new york times versus sullivan that if you're engaging in a parody Of public figures, then you're protected from private lawsuits like Um, a tort claim that says you were trying to inflict emotional distress something that I am I'm serious. I'm a listen. I wrote on the And culture roast. Yeah I'm engaging in satire. That's you're doing what fall well did you're making fun of the person your Exaggerating facts in order to use humor But that's a very different thing going out and saying to somebody Hey, you know what jerry fall well is really a drunk, you know with no humor involved It's the humor in a way that protects you but your honor your honor. I'm confessing to you. Yeah, you're trying to but thankfully I have now I'm being serious. I wrote on on the rob low roast Yeah And culture was on that roast. Yeah, I watched it. It was unbelievable. It was pure malice Yeah, everybody every joke Came from from hatred. I could tell that's why it's so enjoyable to watch But isn't but doesn't that run counter? Isn't that flying in the face of the jerry fall well case? I could see how how they would um The uh fall might make that kind of argument But I think what the court's saying which is sensible is that there's a difference between Truly trying to get people to believe a lie And using humor because you don't like them something like that or you want people to dislike them The latter is okay if I am using these sort of cartoonish facts To uh mock somebody and you know, I don't want them to be reelected For instance in the sort of court case of trump, then that's fine Or I don't want them to read and cult her anymore or to pay her or uh to believe in the uh to you know Give jerry fall well money. I want to expose them as a fraud or somebody that's not worthy of respect Uh, and I use comedy or satire to do that Um or parody then uh the court's saying that's fine. That's that's protected It's as long as she's trying to get somebody to believe something fake about them In fact, you're trying to get them to believe something real, right? Isn't that the idea that she really is bad or that uh, you know, the trump really is a fraud I think that's the idea and she has to be a public figure Yes, that's central. I mean don't don't do this, you know with your co-worker. It's a completely Different case and how do you measure a public figure? Uh, I think there's no, you know empirical test, but um In the case of donald trump, I I think or uh previous or or uh, you know, the those In the white house or in the news all the time. They're sort of the parrot paratomatic example of public figures um politicians people who we're talking about Uh and fall well is famous enough that the court said they are that he also knows in a politician that he Qualified as a public figure Um, but you know, somebody's never been written about in a newspaper has lived a completely private life Uh, that's an easy case on the other side looks like like they're not that's why I keep Saying don't try this on your with your co-workers. Don't do it anyway because it might not be nice But you're not going to get the first amendment protection. So Donald trump gave an interview recently where he said that the constitution is archaic This is a man who believes in appointing originalists To the supreme court, but he himself believes that the supreme court is archaic right the whole constitution I think he was talking about checks and balances Yeah, although I I before the show started kind of listened to him and yeah, it's taken out of context He's blaming senate rules. I know when obama was president We were complaining about senate rules, which you've pointed out are not the constitution. There are some parts of the constitution that are archaic You teach constitutional law What if president obama Or hillary clinton said the constitution is archaic. It was written more than 200 years ago It's slowing progress down We need a constitutional convention. We have to rewrite the constitution. Would you support that? Well, a lot of people are saying that and we're saying it before trump was elected I guess my view is that I have never had more faith in the constitution than I have in the last Certainly 100 days, but really since trump began to run There's a classic defense of checks and balances and strong role of judicial review in the supreme court That it's a defense and a bulwark against tyranny now a lot of people I think before trump was elected said, you know what that's really a silly argument We have a good constitutional culture and the polity We're not going to elect the demagogue to the highest office in the land And the idea that we need this degree of protection Is a mistake and this is getting in the way as you said of progress and I just don't believe that anymore factually It's not true. We elected a demagogue who is completely opposed Not just to small instances of checks and balances or senate rules And I interpret what are you saying in that quote in a different way I think he really doesn't like the fact that the courts Struck down his travel ban based on animus that they are stopping him from Deporting massive numbers of people by going after sanctuary cities And that he doesn't like the fact that he has to deal with congress and passing legislation He doesn't like the system Because it stopped him from just implementing his really bizarre and pernicious agenda So, you know, I am a complete believer in the constitution now in checks and balances I think frankly, it's the one thing that saved us over the last 100 days It's what's thrown him off kilter and prevented an even more radical Not just right wing, but um, I'll I'll say it. I'm I believe it, uh, you know authoritarian autocratic agenda from Taking place we we stopped him because of the constitution So I'm not surprised he doesn't like it. Yeah I do you have trump fatigue? No, I'm getting more energy every day watching him lose. I love it Help me because listening to this show Know that I have trump fatigue that I've been inviting a lot of comedians on the show and right, it's Your eyes don't glaze over. Don't you get tired of being lied to and addressing stupidity I think we're being tested on a daily basis and that all the stuff that I was just talking about which used to be Like weird, you know, you learn it in politics 101 or in con law and people's eyes glaze over because who cares That every day that he lies that he tries to You know deport people or to attack the as he puts it the open up the libel laws That these are it's a test for the constitution and for people around the country to Stand up to a potential tyrant now, you know, a lot of people think oh, we were overreacting What's the big deal the system's working? But it's working because people are standing up to him So I feel invigorated and I think it's you know, people will look back on this and he's not going to win His agenda won't be implemented But it's because we're we're not going to get tired and we're going to keep challenging All right, help me out here. I'm being. Yeah, I'm being really serious about this. Me too. My question is Where's my juice? The problem that I have had since Trump Got elected is I cling to the new york times of the washington post and they're fighting The big fight they're fighting the rational disc, you know, they're they're being rational And they're waiting they're holding Their fire till they gather up all the ammo and then boom Bill O'Reilly's gone. I mean it was it was master for what they did A month ago They wrote this article And next thing, you know, bill O'Reilly's gone So they're very circumspect because they're in the crosshairs Where's the juice? Where's the thing that gets your Your heart beating every morning? I just looked at the pommer report, which is covering russia and Kind of like a walter winchill type of left-wing view of the trump administration Where where do you go for your juice not your rational discourse just the the juice I mean, uh Hmm, I'd say that just reading everyday news reports of what he's doing Uh, it doesn't come from a particular publication and comes from seeing people fight back So take this, um Wave defeating his executive order Uh about sanctuary cities. I mean these were local officials That stood up to him and used actually conservative Federalist society precedents When I say federalist society, I mean a lot of the members of the conservative bar argued for states rights and for Limits when it came to the spending clause and now that Series of precedents is being used by local officials to stand up to donald trump That just reading that news story and any one source is Evidence that the constitution is Working that there are judges implementing it same with the travel ban Same with congress, uh, so at least members of congress Torpedoing his attempted disable Uh, obama care. So I mean, I I'm just every day any news story that's about him losing Uh gives me energy. Okay Before you go, I want to talk to you about your Friend of the court brief on the travel ban, which I I didn't read I didn't do my assignment. I want to ask you for an assignment Okay, but before I ask you for an assignment and we talk about the assignment. I didn't complete I want to talk to you about the process of completing assignments. There's this There I'm being this is a very important to me There was this great piece in the new york times about six months ago that Mythologized the obama kamala. I have a feeling michelle obama Was behind this piece in the new york times much the same way that jackie kennedy was behind The notion of kamala after jack died It's the seven almonds. It's president obama sitting in the treaty room of the white house He puts the kids to bed He's a constitutional law professor And from eight till two in the morning every day He every night he would sit and read With espn going in the background But he would spend about six hours a day In the treaty room of the white house with the yellow legal canary Reading and they would bring him eight almonds Friends of mine we called it the eight almonds story What is your regimen for reading? Do you view reading As an indulgence or a necessity and how can my listeners or the hell with my listeners, how can I Say to myself each day reading is a necessity. I have to carve this time out Um, I don't know that I have a special technique I mean, I'm trying to write a lot these days So I'm kind of religious about usually when I'm not talking to you in the morning writing in the morning And I think when I've got things that I'm writing that I absolutely need to Get more information about I'll use that time too to Sometimes I'll just replace it with reading for two or three hours But yeah, I think clear blocks of time And making it a priority If it's something that you really want to know about, you know, I I don't think just reading around always Is the most focused thing but I think having a Question that you want to answer it and then reading around that question to sometimes this is this is very important to me Yeah For my new listeners was we're always gathering up new listeners. We had for example, we had mr. Methane On the show last week. Uh, he's a flatulent artist out of greek britain and In the tradition of lepetamane And so we have a lot of his fans now listening to the show. So they may not know that you have a A masters in Philosophy from cambridge where I think mr. Methane. I think mr. Methane might have walked Walked by cambridge because he's from great britain Is it cambridge where you got your masters in philosophy? Yes, and you have a phd in Uh political science from princeton I think mr. Methane Is heard of princeton and uh And then you have a law degree from stanford Mr. Methane has never been to california, but So, uh, I forgot the question. No, uh, so you're very enjoying that contrast Ha ha ha By the way, mr. Meth, I never if you heard the interview and I suggest you I uh, he never I never allowed him to perform. I just I I interviewed him For about 40 minutes and we just talked about the craft and his instrument and how he did And the and do you know that I have a lawsuit? It's not nothing by the way, but that's not none of your business That's not fair to you. But the point I'm making is you are very well educated. Do you view, uh Reading as your job. Do you say this is my job? My job is to read And if somebody distracts me You're making it impossible for me to do what I'm supposed to be doing Uh, yeah, I mean to the extent that I need it for issues, especially that I'm working on I try to read a lot about things I'm writing about and you know, that requires a lot of research And I like to go deep into the Facts and to if it's a legal issue to really know not just the specific on point case law But things that are related to it and scholarship So, yeah, it's uh, you know, it's a big part of what I'm doing is when you were I don't know Was there an internet when you started law school? Uh, it had early internet, but yeah, there wasn't an internet. It was not as developed as it is now, certainly, but Are you reading Case law, are you reading on the internet or are you reading actual books? No, I'm reading on the internet I mean, I was right at the edge of when you would kind of go into the library and Um, I still remember actually our first year we did learn about that system Well, they had lexis nexus. Yeah, but they already had lexis nexus and uh Are you distracted? Are you able to immerse yourself when you're Reading on a tablet. Are you distracted? And looking up other things and hitting hyperlinks or can you stay focused? Or do you go down rabbit holes? Yeah, I mean it depends if I'm working I try to I think I am pretty focused and because I'm trying to get some information And so I'm able to read in a different way, but if it's the afternoon and I'm just Reading a newspaper or looking at something online, I'd find it distracting But you know, I still get the paper The hard copy of the paper. So that's one way to focus is there are no hyperlinks. Right, right, you know, I think that's a good thing I'm all for the Existence of hard copies of the newspaper that you could sit with your coffee and go and sit outside and Really just read it thoroughly. Yeah Okay, thank you for your time. I before you go. I want to ask about the amicus Yeah, sure. Is it amicus curate? Yeah That means friend of the court. Yep. You wrote one on the travel ban. Where are we on this? I did it with a lawyer joshua matz and two friends And colleagues nelson tebbie from brooklyn law school and michael schwarzman from the university of virginia And the four of us together Wrote a brief that the court will hopefully read the courts will hopefully read in the night circuit and fourth circuits about why it is that trumps own statements about The travel ban And his own claims during the campaign and since that this is about a shutdown of muslim immigration as well as statements by people like really juliani saying that trump had this Muslim ban and he asked him to make it legal that those all go to what we think is the central issue in the case and that's that the issue in lakumi that You can't have law that's based on animus that you can't try to Discriminate against people based on their religion and if that's your motivation for a law Even if there were other ways perhaps to craft it that would make it legal that that makes it unconstitutional So we're really pulling out. That's why we spent so much time last week And you did it in such depth and with such grace Looking at that case about animus because we think it's the same issue in in this one as well. So um, we have More than 45 law professors from around the country who have signed on to it from different walks of life including real superstars of constitutional law like lorenz tribe And jeffrey stone and they're all agreeing with us that this is really the basis of Why the Travel ban is unconstitutional that it's based in unconstitutional motivation of animus great. Give us an assignment Um, you know, I thought especially Given our discussion today, maybe we could read this very complicated but interesting case Called the you seem to like it the more difficult it is and the more you can get into it And I think talking about the nuance of the first amendment and free speech This christian legal society case Might be great for listeners. So let's make the assignment christian legal society versus martinez a case about the official student status of The student group at hastings law school great Martinez and how do we find that case? um The last time I told people that they could just google the name of the case christian legal society versus martinez and cornell And it'll come up on that public site. You could also use a public site called oyes. Oh y ez Where you can actually listen to to the oral arguments if you really want extra credit Wow And I'd say one of those two uh two sites Okay And I and I apologize to my listeners because I said if you contact me if you read lakume I will send you a gift And I have been behind on the emails and I want to apologize to my listeners because I got several emails People already great. Yeah, I was I you know what I wasn't surprised. Yeah There's a nice flow to this show and We have our vegetables at the end and and it's I am very satisfied With my listeners especially the to the ones who are listening right now Professor corey brett schneider teaches constitutional law at brown Thank you pontiff. Did you learn uh anything from me? Reportage, but let's just make sure you reportage means reporting. Yes, very good very good Okay, thank your mother too. I'm a huge fan of hers. Thank you pontiff. She's talking me up. Thank you Pope corey brett schneider. Well, let's do next tuesday. Yeah, how'd your show go by the way your live show? people People came out Great, we did it at qed. Yeah, and we didn't sell it out It was 7 30 On a saturday night and we only really plugged it through facebook and The show and we have listeners all over the world I was surprised by the number of people who showed up I have to say It is the greatest feeling in the world to meet the listeners, right and It's it's bizarre. It's it's not like stand-up. It's these are people who Who devote a huge chunk of their time? listening to this and and I thank them for that and And I won't waste their time. I you know, I you know, we just did an hour and I And I wanted it to be a half hour because I don't want to waste your time and my mother says don't waste the pope's time I can't waste people's time and I Definitely got a sense that people Came to the show. We're grateful that I don't waste their time. So terrific, but now I'm wasting their time thanking them for Appreciate it. I'm from queens and I love the idea that you're out in my home. Are you from queens? Yeah, absolutely. Antonin Scalia country. Is that where he's from too? Yeah, I love it. Yeah, good place and uh different different folks come from there, I guess And uh, but it sounded great. I saw a few of your mentions and uh, a few of the comics who were there and Look look like a terrific show. Well, we want to do a live more live shows I want to do a live show once a week and I'd like to put you together With I'd like to be on a panel together with with mrs. methane. Yeah We did I do remember just for the record that there was flatulence at cambridge university princeton university and stanford law school All people in all three locations had flatulence. So yeah the blow hearts not unheard of the teaching that that's But um, well great. Thank you professor. Stay on the line. We're gonna stop this. Just please stay on the line for one second. Okay