You are here: Fairness.com > Resources > Prof. Geoffrey Stone Esq.

Prof. Geoffrey Stone Esq.


Self Description

Third-Party Descriptions

January 2011: 'But, as Geoffrey Stone reminds us in his essay, putting obstacles in the way of anyone’s speech (even the speech of sociopaths or perverts or subversives ) has been frowned on by the Supreme Court ever since New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), which holds that, at least as regards public officials, debate should be uninhibited and wide open even if it is “vehement” and “caustic” and contains both “factual error” and “defamatory content.” In subsequent decisions, the category of “public officials” was widened first to include “public persons” and then to include persons who wander into the ambit of a public event, in short, almost everyone.'

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/anonymity-and-the-dark-side-of-the-internet/

December 2005: "By law, according to University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone, the differences are fundamental: Americans have constitutional protections that are enforceable in court whether their conversations are domestic or international."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701233.html

Relationships

RoleNameTypeLast Updated
Employee/Freelancer/Contractor (past or present) University of Chicago Organization Dec 18, 2005

Articles and Resources

Date Fairness.com Resource Read it at:
Jan 03, 2011 A Clear Danger to Free Speech

QUOTE: THE so-called Shield bill, which was recently introduced in both houses of Congress in response to the WikiLeaks disclosures, would amend the Espionage Act of 1917 to make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to disseminate, “in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States,” any classified information “concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States.” Although this proposed law may be constitutional as applied to government employees who unlawfully leak such material to people who are unauthorized to receive it, it would plainly violate the First Amendment to punish anyone who might publish or otherwise circulate the information after it has been leaked.

 New York Times
Jan 03, 2011 Anonymity and the Dark Side of the Internet

QUOTE: What is remarkable about this volume is that the legal academics who make the arguments I have rehearsed are by and large strong free-speech advocates. Yet faced with the problems posed by the Internet, they start talking about “low value” speech (a concept strong first-amendment doctrine rejects) and saying things like “autonomy resides not in free choice per se but in choosing wisely” and “society needs not an absence of ‘chill,’ but an optimal level.”(In short, let’s figure out which forms of speech we should discourage.)

 New York Times
Feb 08, 2006 Limiting NSA Spying Is Inconsistent With Rationale, Critics Say

QUOTE: ...contradictions in the administration's defense of the spying program, under which the National Security Agency intercepts some calls to and from the United States and contacts overseas. Many national security law experts said yesterday that the distinction makes little sense legally, because the administration concluded that President Bush has the constitutional authority to order wiretaps on U.S. citizens and residents without court approval.

 Washington Post
Dec 18, 2005 Pushing the Limits Of Wartime Powers

QUOTE: In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s....the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress.

 Washington Post