Judge Alex Kozinski likes free speech and Lochner

Commercial Speech
Conference, Abrams Institute
 
Interview: Who’s
Afraid of Commercial Speech? — 26 Years Later
 
Ron Collins (Harold
S. Shefelman Scholar, University of Washington, School of Law) & Judge Alex
Kozinski (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit). (Both, incidentally,
won their episodes of The Dating Game.)
 
Collins: Skelly
Wright said commercial speech doesn’t directly communicate ideas and thus isn’t
at the core of the First Amendment.
 
Kozinski: clearly it
does communicate ideas.  As a clerk,
watched the argument in Bates lawyer advertising case.  The idea that ideas belong in one
intellectual realm and commerce in a different realm is discredited.
 
Collins: does the 1A
have a central purpose as such?
 
Kozinski: clearly
not, if you mean the 1A as a whole. 
Speech/press/assembly: never thought of it that way.  Probably, an idea like the 2A’s: a way to
protect against gov’t overreach.  A
popular check on what gov’t can do.
 
Collins: what is
commercial speech?
 
Kozinski: A
noncategory.  Valentine case: strike it
from the lexicon. Doesn’t make sense to have a hierarchy, both theoretically
and practically.
 
Collins: You’ve
criticized theory-based approaches.  So
one theory is that speech is more protected the more it furthers democratic
self-governance.
 
Kozinski: Bull.  Society is not compartmentalized between gov’t
and other endeavors. Speech is speech, just as a functional matter. You get
ideas and they feed into popular culture, which leads to changes in gov’t.  Example: article
on criminal law I wrote in Geo. L.J.
, including on forensic science used by
prosecutors.  State of science in
criminal cases is a shambles. Basically voodoo. 
As a result of writing this article, I was invited to be a member of a
presidential commission dealing w/forensic science.  My piece in academia then is part of the wave
of ideas that (hopefully) affects and is affected by gov’t.  After all, nobody but the occasional
prosecutor wants to convict the innocent. And some of that speech started in
purely scientific fields.
 
You can characterize
everything as democratic self-governance; it’s not that everything feeds into
governance, but what we do in gov’t has effects in real life.
 
Collins: Meiklejohn
had a theory of free speech; ran into difficulties when Harry Kalven asked him
about artistic expression, and he expanded his views to include art.  Is artistic expression, when done for
commercial purposes, is that self-realization, or self-governance, or something
else? I ask b/c these theories are the constructs by which speech is gauged as
protected or not. A talented artist who says she’s in it for the money: what is
that?
 
Kozinski: it’s
difficult and futile to characterize speech that way. Useless. Subjective
intent of artist: baring soul or trying to make a buck, doesn’t matter.  [I’d like to know why the question is being
asked: what regulation might stand or fall on the artist’s intent?]
 
Collins: you said reason
for lower protection for commercial speech was in history, not logic; view
echoed by Justice Thomas in 44 Liquormart.  So someone selling cars, and making claims
about those cars, should be treated the same way as speech in the political
arena by Mr. Trump?
 
Kozinski: depends on
what you mean and for what purposes.  When
there are commercial transactions, you can have fraud, civil liability and
criminal liability based on speech.  Blackmail,
securities transactions—those are possible, which should not be possible for
political speech.  As a matter of theory
they aren’t different.
 
Collins: but what
you just said indicates that political speech is more protected in your view
than commercial, b/c of how you treat false speech.
 
Kozinski: some
things have implications that allow for punishment, b/c of direct harm to
victims from speech itself; that’s a narrow category. [Directness doesn’t do the
job he thinks it does—remember caveat emptor and letting the market decide.]  Doesn’t mean that speech is less important.
 
Collins: current
constitutional status, in your view?
 
Kozinski: SCt takes
cases at the margin, not the center; doesn’t mean a test is bad, just that
sometimes all tests have difficult applications.
 
Collins: then can
bright line rules survive in any constitutional context?
 
Kozinski: they’d
better, b/c the alternative is “who’s the panel?”  At least tests give you some broad ability to
predict/advise clients.  In 90% of cases
overall, it doesn’t matter who the panel is. 
Need to give a rationale that’s capable of application in future cases;
that’s part of the appellate judge’s role. Having tests w/prongs channels this
thinking, channels att’n of future decisionmakers and gives some measure of
predictability.  The fact that
close/difficult cases are still uncertain doesn’t negate that principle or
prove that tests are useless.
 
Collins: one taboo
of our time is “Lochner.”  Linda
Greenhouse: the Court returns to the bygone era of Lochner by labeling econ. reg.
of business conduct as a restraint on free speech.  (Borrowed from Rehnquist dissent in Central Hudson.) Others have echoed that charge, criticizing the Roberts Court for
using 1A as a deregulatory tool.  Your thoughts?
 
Kozinski: Can’t
speak to Rehnquist, but he likes Lochner, so that’s ok with him.  He doesn’t see a problem w/that.  When you talk about regulation, you’re
talking about gov’t control. 1A as a way of controlling gov’t: regulatory state
is a reality.  Does more day to day
governing our conduct than actual legislation. 
Good thing to put another check on gov’t regulation.
 
Collins: What about
data as speech/algorithmic securities trading?
 
Kozinski: it surely
is a form of communication, becoming the dominant form.  Has 1A implications, but not prepared to say
to what extent.
 
Collins: we tend to
think of speech as person to person, but when computers are sending data to
each other, the result of which is a commercial transaction, do you think it’s
w/in the umbrella of 1A coverage (whether or not protected)?
 
Kozinski: Doesn’t
see why not.
 
Collins: TM and free
speech: any thoughts about how to approach such issues?
 
Kozinski: wrote an
article, Trademarks Unplugged, about how TMs get injected into culture; easiest
way to communicate may be to use TM as shorthand for communicating an idea.
Displace other ways of saying the same things; give up the right to control
such uses.
 
Collins: what about
offensive speech in a TM context?
 
Kozinski: won’t try
to decide the REDSKINS case. Hard to say in the abstract; depends on the Q. If
Q is whether you want to make a reference to the TM in communication, that’s
different from whether TM owner is entitled to a particular mark that’s
offensive.
 
Collins: off-label
promotion by pharma cos?
 
Kozinski: Possible
fraud issue. 
 
Collins: if
truthful?
 
Kozinski: full
answer: claim that it’s truthful is beginning of inquiry. Might be truthful but
misleading, particularly w/things that are highly regulated like drugs. Ability
to mislead or create harmful effects w/truth is pretty high.  Concurrence in Alvarez: not a big believer in truth as a talisman; lying is part
of life. Distinction b/t truth and lying is not that useful in the 1A context.
 
Collins: porn is a
$97 billion global industry.  Some men
are convinced that porn sabotaged their sexual responses.  What sort of considerations would come into
play if a gov’t tried to regulate porn on public health grounds? 
 
Kozinski: can be
asked about other kinds of speech, such as Stevens
(crush videos) and violent video games. 
Had some doubts, similar to those of Alito’s dissent in Brown. Part of the problem is that Cal. didn’t
do particularly thorough job of documenting link b/t violent video games and
bad effect, but if there were really good, reliable research on a type of
speech doing harm, particularly to minors, gov’t should have ability to
restrict it.  For adults, that’s a more
difficult question; probably not, but trouble coming up w/principled reason.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/1Uvsmvh

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s