We the People

As ChatGPT and other generative AI platforms have taken off, they’ve demonstrated exciting possibilities about the potential benefits of artificial intelligence; while at the same time, have raised a myriad of open questions and complexities, from how to regulate the pace of AI’s growth, to whether AI companies can be held liable for any misinformation reported or generated through the platforms. Earlier this week, the first ever AI defamation lawsuit was filed, by a Georgia radio host who claims that ChatGPT falsely accused him of embezzling money. The case presents new and never-before answered legal questions, including what happens if AI reports false and damaging information about a real person? Should that person be able to sue the AI’s creator for defamation? In this episode two leading First Amendment scholars—Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law and Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Law School—join to explore the emerging legal issues surrounding artificial intelligence and the First Amendment. They discuss whether AI has constitutional rights; who if anyone can be sued when AI makes up or mistakes information; whether artificial intelligence might lead to new doctrines regarding regulation of online speech; and more.  Resources: Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “First (?) Libel-by-AI (ChatGPT) Lawsuit Filed” (June 6, 2023) Walters v. OpenAI L.L.C., No. 23-A-04860-2 Eugene Volokh, Large Libel Models? Liability for AI Output Eugene Volokh, Volokh Conspiracy, “The Great Success of Artificial Intelligence” (June 7, 2023) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse in Cyberspace”, Duke Law Journal (2000) Lyrissa Lidsky, “Of Reasonable Readers and Unreasonable Speakers: Libel Law in a Networked World” (2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.   

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those programs with you: A conversation with four leading constitutional experts about the NCC’s Constitution Drafting Project, the amendment process, Article V, and the future of constitutional reform. The four scholars are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, David French of the New York Times, and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Additional Resources National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project  Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The Supreme Court’s “shadow docket”—cases in which the Court issues emergency orders and summary decisions without oral argument—has been subject to growing scrutiny. Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak of The New York Times and Jennifer Mascott of the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School join Stephen Vladeck of The University of Texas School of Law for a conversation on Vladeck’s new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, exploring the history and role of the shadow docket and the current debates surrounding the Court’s emergency rulings. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates. Additional Resources Stephen Vladeck, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic  Stephen Vladeck, “Texas’s Unconstitutional Abortion Ban and the Role of the Shadow Docket,” Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee  National Constitution Center, “The Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket’,” We the People podcast  Jennifer Mascott, “Jurisdiction and the Supreme Court’s Orders Docket,” George Mason Legal Studies Research Paper  Adam Liptak, “Alito Responds to Critics of the Supreme Court’s ‘Shadow Docket,” The New York Times   Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The National Constitution Center and Khan Academy are partnering to create a free online Constitution 101 course premised on a simple, radical act: bringing together genuine experts who genuinely disagree about the most important constitutional issues facing our nation today; and use their examples to model thoughtful, respectful civil dialogue. In this special episode of We the People, host Jeffrey Rosen sits down with Khan Academy founder and CEO Sal Khan, in a one-on-one conversation to discuss the state of civics in America today, in light of the recent Nation’s Report Card data showing a nationwide decline in civics and history scores; explain how the NCC and Khan Academy partnership and the Constitution 101 course can improve outcomes in civics education nationwide; the role of AI like Khanmigo in education and teaching about the Constitution and civil dialogue; and much more.  Resources: Jeffrey Rosen and Sal Khan, TIME, “How We Can Repair Our Democracy and Build a More Perfect Union” NCC/Khan Academy partnership announcement, press release National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Report Card NCC’s Constitution 101 course  Sal Khan, TED Talk, “How AI could save (not destroy) education” Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently weighing two cases involving Harvard University and the University of North Carolina that could end affirmative action in higher education. The National Constitution Center hosted a live program on May 4, 2023, featuring a conversation between constitutional law experts William B. Allen of Michigan State University and Hasan Kwame Jeffries of The Ohio State University. They discuss the history of affirmative action, the current cases before the Court, how the Court might rule in them, and how the outcome of the two cases could affect the future of affirmative action programs across the country. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina (Oral Argument Transcript; audio hosted by C-SPAN) William B. Allen, “End of Affirmative Action 2023”   Interview with Hasan Kwame Jeffries, “Why Conservatives want the Supreme Court to take up Affirmative Action Case,” Yahoo!News   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 1,” We the People podcast   National Constitution Center, “Affirmative Action and the 14th Amendment – Part 2,” We the People podcast   Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)   Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)   Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)   Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) Slaughter-House Cases (1873) Shelby County v. Holder (2013) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last year's Supreme Court term was one of the most significant in recent history with landmark decisions and cases about abortion, guns, religious liberty, the administrative state, and more. In this episode, veteran Supreme Court reporter and CNN Legal Analyst, Joan Biskupic, joins to unpack these recent developments and to discuss her new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences. She and host Jeffrey Rosen have a reporter's chat and compare notes to discuss the evolution of the Court over the past 30 years, from the Reagan years through the Rehnquist Court, up to the Robert’s Court and what lies ahead.    Resources:   -       Joan Biskupic, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court's Drive to the Right and its Historic Consequences (2023) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Big Chief,” The New Republic (July 2012) -       Jeffrey Rosen, “Disgrace,” The New Republic (Dec. 23, 2004)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, atbit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not “true threats,” which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under “true threats” (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a “true threat” is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in the Counterman v. Colorado case, the history of “true threats” doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that “true threats” should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speaker’s specific intent. Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago and Gabe Walters of FIRE join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.  Resources: Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression in Support of Petitioner and Reversal, Counterman v. Colorado  Brief of First Amendment Scholars Evelyn Douek, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh in Support of Respondent, Counterman v. Colorado  Oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, April 19, 2023 (Audio by C-SPAN; transcript) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last week, the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado man, Billy Ray Counterman, who was sentenced to over four years in prison for stalking due to threatening Facebook messages that he sent to a singer named C.W. Counterman argued that the charges violated his speech rights and that his messages were not “true threats,” which is a kind of speech not protected under the First Amendment. The issue in the case is whether or not his messages actually constituted under “true threats” (or if conduct like stalking should be distinguished); and if so, how should courts determine what a “true threat” is? In this episode, we dive into the facts and issues in the Counterman v. Colorado case, the history of “true threats” doctrine under the First Amendment, and recap the oral arguments, including whether the justices might decide that “true threats” should be determined by an objective test, such as if a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence; or whether they might find that it depends on the speaker’s specific intent. Genevieve Lakier of the University of Chicago and Gabe Walters of FIRE join host Jeffrey Rosen to discuss.  Resources: Brief of Amicus Curiae Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression in Support of Petitioner and Reversal, Counterman v. Colorado  Brief of First Amendment Scholars Evelyn Douek, Genevieve Lakier, and Eugene Volokh in Support of Respondent, Counterman v. Colorado  Oral argument in Counterman v. Colorado, April 19, 2023 (Audio by C-SPAN; transcript) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Earlier this year, the National Constitution Center hosted an event in Miami, Florida, featuring a series of meaningful conversations about the Constitution with speakers of diverse perspectives. In this episode, we’re sharing one of those conversations with you. During an evening keynote program, five great constitutional experts were asked an important question: Should we break up with the founders? In other words, should we still look to the drafters of the Declaration and Constitution—from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison to George Washington—despite their moral and philosophical hypocrisies, such as ownership of enslaved people, or do they still have something to teach us? And was the original Constitution a flawed but meaningful attempt to realize the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, one made more perfect by Reconstruction—or is the original Constitution so fatally flawed by the original sin of slavery that it does not deserve respect? The five scholars you’ll hear discuss and debate this question are: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School, Caroline Fredrickson of Georgetown Law, Kermit Roosevelt of Penn Law, Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times, and Charles Cooke of the National Review. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.  Resources: Kermit Roosevelt III, The Nation That Never Was: Reconstructing America’s Story (2022) Akhil Reed Amar, The Words That Made Us: America’s Constitutional Conversation, 1760–1840 (2021) Caroline Fredrickson, “A Constitution of Our Own Making,” Washington Monthly (2021) Jamelle Bouie, “We Had to Force the Constitution to Accommodate Democracy, and It Shows” New York Times (Oct. 2022) Charles C. W. Cooke, National Review, “America’s Founding Changed Human History Forever” (July 4, 2016) Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library. 

Last Friday, judges in Texas and Washington state handed down conflicting decisions on the legality of abortion medication pills. In Texas, a district judge invalidated the FDA’s decades-old approval of the widely used drug mifepristone. Late this Wednesday, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit partially overruled that decision by allowing mifepristone to remain available, but temporarily prevented it from being sent to by mail and limited its approved use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Meanwhile, in Washington state, a district judge ordered the FDA to not rollback mifepristone’s approval while litigation over the drug is ongoing. Together, the two cases create a legal debacle for the FDA, which the Justice Department has asked the Washington court to provide guidance on. Eventually, the cases may go to the U.S. Supreme Court. Thomas Jipping of The Heritage Foundation and Rachel Rebouché of the Temple University Beasley School of Law join to discuss whether mailing mifepristone violates the Comstock Act; if the FDA’s approval of the drug violated the Administrative Procedure Act; and if the district courts had jurisdiction to rule on these cases in the first place. Host Jeffrey Rosen moderates.   Resources   Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Washington v. FDA (E.D. Wa., Apr. 7, 2023)  Memorandum Opinion and Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (N.D. TX., Apr. 7, 2023) Order, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA (5th Cir., Apr. 13, 2023) Thomas Jipping, “The Justice Department Is Wrong: Federal Law Does Prohibit Mailing Abortion Drugs,” Heritage Foundation Report (Feb. 2023) Rachel Rebouche (with David Cohen and Greer Donley), “The Plaintiffs Trying to Ban the Abortion Pill Admitted They Have No Case,” Slate (March 2023)  Questions or comments about the show? Email us at [email protected].    Continue today’s conversation on Facebook and Twitter using @ConstitutionCtr.    Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate, at bit.ly/constitutionweekly.    You can find transcripts for each episode on the podcast pages in our Media Library.