From March 6, 2024: Executive branch constraints and the posture of the media have shifted in significant ways over the past two decades. Lyrissa Lidsky and Christina Koningisor, law professors at the University of Florida and the University of California San Francisco, respectively, argue in&nbs...
From March 6, 2024: Executive branch constraints and the posture of the media have shifted in significant ways over the past two decades. Lyrissa Lidsky and Christina Koningisor, law professors at the University of Florida and the University of California San Francisco, respectively, argue in a forthcoming law review article that these changes—including the erosion of certain post-Watergate reforms and the decline of local news—have created a First Amendment disequilibrium. They contend that the twin assumptions of the press’s power to extract information and check government authority on the one hand, and the limitations on executive branch power on the other, that undergird First Amendment jurisprudence no longer hold, leaving the press at a significant First Amendment disadvantage.
Lawfare Research Fellow Matt Gluck spoke with Lidsky and Koningisor about the current state of First Amendment jurisprudence, the ways in which the press used to be stronger, executive branch power on the federal and state levels, how the authors think our current First Amendment architecture should change, and more.
To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.
Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.