Dean and Professor of Law Dan Filler introduces Unprecedented@Kline, commentary from Kline School of Law faculty on the First Amendment cases examined in WAMU's podcast, Unprecedented.

On November 15, 2019, our symposium brought together leading scholars and practitioners to explore the possibilities of an inclusive First Amendment for an era of advancing racial and gender equality, political polarization, and technological interconnectedness.

What would you do if the federal government passed a law requiring every vehicle to display a “Make American Great Again” bumper sticker (and you weren’t a Trump supporter)?

Professor Lisa Tucker discusses the importance of the First Amendment to the political process and how Wooley v. Maynard (1977) addressed the right “not to speak.”

Can the government compel you to say something you disagree with on moral or religious grounds, even if it is trying to protect its citizens from misleading information or inform them of state services?

Professor David Cohen discusses NIFLA v. Becerra (2018) and argues that the Supreme Court has given non-medical centers more First Amendment rights than doctors and clinics that perform abortions, a constitutionally protected medical procedure.

Listen to the third episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “Terry Abrahamson’s Dirty Joke,” which explores Hustler v. Falwell (1988) and the topic of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Would you believe that preacher Jerry Falwell’s “first time” was in a drunken, incestuous relationship with his mother, in an outhouse? No?

Dean Dan Filler discusses Hustler v. Falwell (1988), intentional infliction of emotional distress and the expansion of corporate free speech rights.

Listen to the fourth episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “Middle Finger To God,” which explores Snyder v. Phelps (2011) and the topic of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

How would you feel if you showed up at a funeral for an American Marine to find protestors waving signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “America is Doomed”?

Professor Chapin Cimino discusses key differences between two decisions that, at first glance, might seem aligned — Snyder v. Phelps (2011) and New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).

Listen to the fifth episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “The Most Moderate Protest,” which explores Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and the topic of student speech.

What should students be allowed to wear to school? Does freedom of expression stop at the classroom door?

Professor Adam Benforado discusses Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) — a high-water mark for student speech — and how student speech rights have been eroded since the decision.

Listen to the sixth episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “Drugs for a Deity,” which explores Morse v. Frederick (2007) and the topic of student speech.

Should students be allowed to say whatever they want in school? When do they lose their freedom of speech?

Professor Lisa Tucker discusses Morse v. Frederick (2007) and gives an example of how student speech might be “more perilous” now than in the past, as “kids do more and more virtually rather than on school campuses.”

Listen to the seventh episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “Bodily Harm Is Coming,” which explores Virginia v. Black (2003) and the topic of true threats.

Would you be intimidated if someone set fire to a cross in your front yard? What if it was in a park across the street during a political rally?

Professor Anil Kalhan discusses Virginia v. Black (2003), highlighting how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas influenced the other Justices’ understanding of the history and social meaning of cross-burning.

Listen to the eighth episode of WAMU’s Unprecedented, “A Thousand Ways to Kill You,” which explores Elonis v. United States (2015) and the topic of true threats.

Many rap lyrics mention or even threaten violence. When do they move from artistic expression to a real cause for concern? What if the rapper describes wanting to kill his ex-wife or to become famous by shooting up a kindergarten class?

Professor David Cohen discusses Elonis v. United States (2015) and the Supreme Court’s failure to provide significant guidance to lower courts regarding online threats.