1
Form memo re presentation format – for presentations about free speech/intellectual
freedom/civil discourse -- including sample (potential) interview questions for Nadine
Strossen to discuss – prepared by Nadine Strossen -- last updated 3/29/24
Interview format for opening presentation (to be followed by audience Q&A)
My preferred format for a presentation – which I have used for almost all of my many
speaking engagements for the past half-dozen or so years, and which has consistently been well-
received by diverse audiences – is to be interviewed (usually by one interviewer, but also quite
regularly by two or even more panelists). Rather than presenting my opening remarks through a
conventional talking-head monologue, the same information is elicited in a Q&A format, which
is more engaging and dynamic. Another advantage of the interview format – beyond its more
dynamic quality – is that it permits the fine-tuning of each presentation to the specific aspects of
the broad themes that are of special interest/concern to the particular audience.
After this opening portion of the program, it is turned over to the audience, for audience
members to ask their questions.
This format has worked well for a wide array of audiences and forums, including even
formal occasions such as Convocation and other titled campus lectures. Interviewers have also
been varied, including: university Presidents, Provosts, Chancellors, Deans, Trustees, and other
officers; faculty members from a range of fields; university staff members, including from DEI
and Student Affairs offices; students (including middle and high school students, when I have
spoken at their schools); government officials; human rights activists; religious leaders; and
journalists.
My bottom-line goal is to tailor each presentation -- in format as well as substance—to
the needs/preferences of each invitor/forum, so if you might conclude that you prefer my
opening remarks to be presented via a conventional lecture format, I’ll gladly deliver one. In
any event, I thank you for at least giving serious consideration to the proposed interview format,
in light of audiences’ consistently enthusiastic responses to it.
Examples of past presentations in interview format
Google (and other online search tools) should easily lead you to links of many videos of
presentations I have made in interview format for diverse audiences and forums. For example,
here is a link to an interview by the prominent journalist and longtime CNN commentator Jeffrey
Toobin, conducted at the Jewish Community Center in Sherman, CT on January 7, 2024: JCC in
Sherman - YouTube
For some campus presentations, interview format involving student panelists (again
to be followed by audience Q&A)
One way of implementing the preferred interview format, which has proven highly
successful for campus (and high school/middle school) presentations, is involving leaders of a
diverse array of student groups, each to ask one question, on behalf of its membership. This
approach engages student members -- as well as leaders -- of the groups in advance, and also
encourages their attendance.
One recent example (February 2024) was at Suffolk Law School, where I was initially
interviewed by Suffolk Law School Professor David Yamada (an internationally eminent anti-
harassment, anti-bullying expert and advocate), who asked several key questions, and I was then
asked one question each by a panel of student leaders from diverse groups, including the: Black
2
Law Students Association, Jewish Law Students Association, Moot Court Association, Muslim
Law Students Association, Outlaw (the LGBTQ+ group), and the Women’s Law
Association,. There was an overflow crowd, and the accolades and enthusiasm afterward were
so great that Prof. Yamada wrote about it for his well-respected blog and said that in the future,
he and other faculty colleagues who had attended had concurred that other “lectures” (I had been
invited to present a titled annual lecture) would follow the same type of interactive format. Here
is a link to his blog post, which includes a photo of the event: Let’s safeguard free speech, while
learning how to engage in more constructive conversations about difficult topics « Minding the
Workplace (wordpress.com)
Potential titles
Many hosts have come up with their own titles, which is just fine with me! But many ask
me for ideas. To signal both the topic and the format, it is helpful to have both a main title and a
subtitle. For example: “Freedom of Speech: A Conversation with Nadine Strossen.”
Alternative main titles might include: “Current Free Speech Controversies”; “Hot Topics in Free
Speech”; “Does Free Speech Go too Far?” Alternative subtitles might include: “An Interview of
Nadine Strossen by [insert name(s)]”; or “A Conversation between Nadine Strossen and [insert
name(s)].”
Interview questions: overall considerations
Topics
Please note that I would be happy to field any question that relates to the general
interrelated areas of free speech, academic freedom, and civil discourse – from the most general
to the most specific. I am happy to address broad, basic questions of a timeless nature – for
example, what are the purposes of free speech – as well as specific questions that are currently
in the news – for example, issues presented by the many First Amendment cases pending before
the Supreme Court. All such topics are of such widespread concern, and subject to so much
discussion, that most people have many pertinent questions just “off the top of their heads.”
Nonetheless, many interviewers have asked me to suggest sample questions from which they
could potentially draw, which I have been happy to do; the below sample questions are listed in
no particular order of preference.
In light of the sample questions, I want to stress again that I am glad to give interviewers
free rein to ask whatever questions they choose – and that of course includes discretion not to
include any/all of the sample questions!
It bears repeating that another advantage of the interview format – beyond its more
dynamic quality – is that it permits the fine-tuning of each presentation to the specific aspects of
the broad themes that are of special interest/concern to the particular audience.
I depend on and thank each interviewer for posing questions that are likely to be of
greatest interest to the particular audience and forum at the specific event.
I’m also delighted to meet in advance (via phone, Zoom, etc.) with event organizers
and/or interviewers to discuss which questions might be the most important to include in the
particular event.
Timing/Number of opening questions
3
As with all aspects of each presentation, I defer to the judgment and preferences of my
host. Nonetheless, I am regularly asked about what timing/numbers of questions have worked
well in the past.
In my experience, most programs are scheduled to run for about 90 minutes total, with
45-60 minutes allocated for the opening presentation, and the remainder allocated for audience
Q&A. These topics are of such widespread general concern, that there is never a shortage of
audience questions; indeed, on some occasions, the organizers have chosen to weight the
program mostly toward audience Q&A, with only brief stage-setting introductory questions by
the moderator. As a general rule of thumb, based on my experience, I have concluded that at 1/3
of the total time should be reserved for the audience participation portion, and perhaps as much
as 1/2.
The questions all raise complex matters, which cannot be answered briefly. Accordingly,
interviewers should assume that we’re not likely to get through more than 10 questions/answers,
and perhaps even fewer. My advice to all interviewers in prioritizing questions is the following:
Assume that I would only have time to answer ONE question; what should that question be?
Then assume that I would only have time to answer TWO questions; what would the 2
nd
question
be? Etc……
Advance consultation about proposed questions: at the organizers’ option
I am completely happy to answer questions spontaneously, with no advance consultation
with the moderator about which questions s/he will pose (even if the questions aren’t drawn from
my samples). If, though, the interviewer/organizers would prefer to show me the proposed
questions in advance, I’m happy to review and provide my feedback. Both approaches have
worked equally well.
Sample questions – grouped by topical categories
I have listed sample questions in the following categories (neither the categories, nor the
questions within each category, are listed in any order of preference):
General questions about free speech controversies
Questions about specific current free speech controversies
Questions from my new book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know® (Oxford
University Press 2023): The twelve most common, most challenging questions
about/arguments against free speech
Questions about hate speech – related to my 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It
with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press 2018)
Questions about the forthcoming reissued edition of my book, Defending Pornography:
Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights (originally published by Scribner in
1995, to be republished for the NYU Classics Series on Mar. 5, 2024, with a new Preface)
Questions about free speech controversies in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas
terrorist attacks on Israel
4
Questions about academic freedom/free speech on campus in general
Questions about academic freedom/free speech at law schools in particular
Questions about free speech rights in public and school libraries
Questions about minors’ free speech rights, including in public schools
…………………………………………………………………..
General questions about free speech controversies
You have been writing and speaking about freedom of speech non-stop for quite a few years
now. Why have you made this such an important priority?
Give us your elevator pitch in favor of free speech.
Free speech has become very controversial, even among groups who traditionally have supported
it, including many professors, students, journalists, librarians, and publishers. Why has this
happened, and what steps would you propose to increase support for free speech?
………………………………………..
Questions about specific current free speech controversies
>Many federal and state officials, of both major political parties, have supported restrictions on
Tik Tok, citing concerns about national security and minors’ privacy. Do these restrictions
violate the First Amendment?
>Judges and other experts have been debating whether major online platforms should be treated
as “common carriers” or “public utilities,” which would have to serve as neutral conduits for all
speech and speakers, rather than enforcing their own “community standards” and engaging in
their own “content moderation.” Would this approach be consistent with the First Amendment?
Would it be a good idea?
>One of the few issues on which many leading Democrats and Republicans agree with each
other is that “Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act should be repealed or at least
revised – to eliminate or reduce the immunity that online platforms currently enjoy for content
posted by third parties. For example, that position was advocated by both Joe Biden and
Donald Trump during the last Presidential campaign. What is Section 230 immunity and do you
think it should be repealed or revised?
>Especially in the wake of COVID and the 2020 Presidential election, the most controversial
kind of speech has become disinformation – including about those two topics. The concern is
that such disinformation can seriously harm health – even life itself – and our democratic form of
government. How does First Amendment law now draw the line between protected and
5
punishable disinformation, and should that line be redrawn – to give the government more power
to punish more disinformation?
>Ever since Elon Musk expressed an interest in purchasing Twitter (now X), there has been
constant controversy about his statements and actions, including his early pledge to increase free
speech on the platform. What do you think are the most important lessons from the recent
developments with Twitter/X?
>In the wake of the “Twitter Files,” “Facebook Files,” and Congressional hearings and judicial
rulings about them, there has been much discussion about the relationships between many
government officials and agencies, and the major social media platforms, concerning the
platforms’ “content moderation” decisions. Are the government officials unduly coercing or
conspiring with the companies to remove certain content, or are the officials simply encouraging
the companies to do so? What are the First Amendment rights – and wrongs – in these kinds of
situations?
>A federal court in Florida recently held that Florida’s “Stop Woke Act” violates the First
Amendment. Please explain that law, and the many other similar laws around the country, and
what First Amendment problems they present.
>There has been a lot of controversy about so-called “cancel culture.” What does that term
mean? And isn’t criticizing someone, and even advocating their punishment, itself an exercise
of free speech? So why do critics complain that cancel culture undermines free speech?
>Many conservatives and Republicans complain about censorship coming from the left: for
example, “cancel culture” on campus and in the larger public sphere, and social media content
moderation policies that (allegedly) discriminate against conservative ideas and speakers.
Conversely, many liberals and Democrats complain about censorship from the right: for
example, the many state laws that restrict curricula at the K-12 and even campus levels, and the
many attempts to ban books in public and school libraries. Who’s right about this? Which group
poses the biggest danger to free speech?
>In the recent past, there have been many high-profile examples of students and faculty members
who have been punished for expression on the ground that it is offensive – for example, the art
history professor who lost a job at Hamline University for showing a slide of a classic work of
Islamic art that depicted the prophet Muhammad. Hamline University’s President stated that
"respect, decency, and appreciation of religious and other differences should supersede"
academic freedom. Do you agree? What limits should there be on expression on campus – both
in classrooms and in other campus settings?
>On January 6, 2021, Donald Trump made an incendiary speech to a crowd that then attacked
the Capitol, resulting in great harm, including physical injuries and deaths of police officers and
others, and endangering our democratic republic. Does First Amendment law permit his speech
to be punished? If not, should the law be revised?
6
>There have been debates about whether the federal indictments of Donald Trump violate the
First Amendment. What are the arguments pro and con?
>In June, the Supreme Court decided one of the many recent cases involving tensions between
free speech rights and public accommodation laws: when providers of various expressive
services decline to provide such services for same-sex weddings because of religious objections.
The Supreme Court case involves a custom website designer who will provide the same web
design services to all customers, regardless of who they are, but who will refuse to design for
anyone websites that promote messages that violate her beliefs. What do you think is the correct
outcome in this case?
>Several prominent federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, recently have called for
the Supreme Court to revise/reverse its famous New York Times v. Sullivan decision (1964),
which makes it quite difficult for public officials/public figures to prevail in a defamation
lawsuit. Could you discuss the pros and cons of the Sullivan defamation standards?
……………………………..
Questions from my new book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know® (Oxford
University Press 2023): The twelve most common, most challenging questions
about/arguments against free speech
1) Isn’t First Amendment law too rigidly absolute?
2) Even speech that doesn’t satisfy the emergency standard (“non-emergency speech”)
could well be harmful, so why doesn’t the First Amendment permit non-emergency
speech restrictions?
3) Doesn’t First Amendment law privilege free speech above equality rights?
4) Doesn’t freedom of speech rest on the flawed assumption that words are harmless?
5) Doesn’t freedom of speech rest on the false premise that the marketplace of ideas will
lead to truth?
6) Isn’t freedom of speech the tool of the powerful, not the powerless?
7) Isn’t some speech tantamount to violence, and therefore subject to punishment, along
with other forms of violence?
8) Hasn’t freedom of speech become mostly a conservative talking point?
9) Doesn’t Germany’s experience, with the rise of Hitler and Nazism, show that we should
censor hateful and extremist speech?
7
10) Aren’t free speech defenders wrong when they claim that the best answer to harmful
speech is “counterspeech”?
11) Shouldn’t government have more power to restrict social media because of its
unprecedented power to convey harmful speech?
12) Don’t social media algorithms warrant more government restrictions because they
manipulate people into “echo chambers” and “rabbit holes,” thus undermining both
liberty and democracy?
………………………………..
Questions about hate speech – related to my 2018 book, HATE: Why We Should Resist It
with Free Speech, Not Censorship (Oxford University Press 2018)
1) What is the legal definition of “hate speech”?
2) Why should we defend freedom even “for the thought that we hate”?
3)How can you, as the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, possibly defend free speech for neo
Nazis and other racists? We often hear that the First Amendment protects “hate speech,” but we
also often hear that “hate speech is not free speech” under the First Amendment. Which, if either,
of these statements is correct?
4)Is the U.S. an international outlier on these issues? How does the First Amendment law
compare/contrast to international human rights law on point (under the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights)?
5) Do you deny that “hate speech” causes harm, including psychological and emotional harm to
its targets, as well as fostering discrimination and violence?
6)Many other countries have long enforced anti-“hate speech” laws, including Britain, Canada,
Australia, and other democracies very similar to ours. Surely you’re not contending that there
isn’t sufficiently robust free speech in these places, are you? Or that their democratic self-
government is undermined?
7)How can you, as a privileged, well-educated white person, presume to tell members of
vulnerable minority groups that they should have to endure being subjected to hateful,
disparaging, dehumanizing expression?
8)You advocate “counterspeech” as an alternative to censorship. But isn’t it unfair to expect
targets of “hate speech” to have to bear this burden? Many of them may not have the education,
or access to technology to effectively engage in counterspeech. And many may feel intimidated
and chilled from speaking.
8
9)Isn’t it true that Hitler rose to power in Germany because the Nazis’ anti-Semitic and other
“hate speech” fueled the spread of discrimination, violence, and ultimately genocide?
Universities have no obligation to invite controversial speakers, do they? Why should they give a
platform to hateful, hated views?
10)In a situation such as that faced by Berkeley, where demonstrators engaged in property
damage and actual or threatened violence against people in connection with the scheduled speech
by Milo Yiannopoulos in 2017, isn’t there a justification for cancelling the speech?
11)Was the ACLU wrong to defend the free speech rights of the “Unite the Right” demonstrators
in Charlottesville?
12)Was the ACLU wrong to subsequently state that it would no longer defend the free speech (or
other) rights of demonstrators who are armed?
13)Why should the ACLU use its scarce resources to defend free speech (or other) rights of
people who are using those rights to advocate hateful, discriminatory views and policies?
Shouldn’t it leave those cases to other lawyers and organizations?
14)Doesn’t the rise of Donald Trump show that “hate speech” has adverse consequences?
15)Doesn’t a private college or university have its own First Amendment rights to declare certain
ideas off limits?
16)Don’t the Internet and social media present unique new dangers from “hate speech,”
justifying online censorship of such speech, even if such censorship wouldn’t be justified in
traditional media? In the wake of rising “hate speech” and hate crimes in the recent past, online
intermediaries have been increasingly denying their platforms and services to “hate speech.”
Specifically in the wake of Charlottesville, even Cloudflare, which had previously maintained a
strict policy of not enforcing any such content limits, finally denied its services to a neo-Nazi
website. In fact, online intermediaries have been criticized for not moving quickly or forcefully
enough to deny their services to “hate speech” and other extremist, potentially dangerous,
content. These questions/controversies continue to arise in the wake of continuing episodes of
hateful, extremist violence, some of which were preceded by hateful online screeds. What do you
think the online companies should do to monitor and remove “hate speech” and other extremist,
potentially dangerous expression? When are you and the ACLU finally going to follow in the
footsteps of the online companies, and deny your services to such abhorrent speech?
17) Since you oppose censoring “hate speech,” what steps would you support to reduce the
harms that “hate speech” potentially causes: psychic injury, discrimination, and violence? Are
there such steps that you would recommend specifically in the campus context?
…………………………………
9
Questions about the forthcoming reissued edition of my book, Defending Pornography:
Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women’s Rights (originally published by Scribner in
1995, to be republished for the NYU Classics Series on 3/5/24, with a new Preface)
What was the major theme of this book, and why has NYU Press decided that it is still relevant –
indeed, worthy of “Classic” status?
Many books recently have been attacked as “pornography” or “obscenity” that should be
removed from public and school libraries and school curricula – including even Art
Spiegelman’s award-winning graphic novel about the Holocaust, Maus, and The Diary of Anne
Frank. What are the applicable First Amendment principles?
The original edition of Defending Pornography responded to the then-dominant “radical
feminist” view that sexually explicit expression that “demeans” or “degrades” women should be
censored because it contributes to discrimination and violence against women. You explained
the feminist anti-censorship view: that censoring sexual expression does more harm than good
specifically to women’s rights, and also to the rights of LGBTQ+ people. How are these 20
th
-
century debates among feminists relevant to today’s cultural and political debates?
Many of the recent efforts to limit sexually themed expression are aimed at protecting children,
and also parents’ rights to make educational decisions on behalf of their children. Aren’t these
sufficiently important concerns to justify at least some of the restrictions?
……………………..
Questions about free speech controversies in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas
terrorist attacks on Israel
1)Should even anti-Semitic speech, and speech advocating terrorism, be permitted? When does
such expression cross the line between protected and punishable speech?
2)Even if anti-Semitic speech and speech advocating terrorism should be protected from
government restrictions, shouldn’t employers have the right to refuse to hire students who have
engaged in such speech, or to withdraw job offers? (As happened concerning law students at
NYU and Harvard.) And even if employers have the right to do this, should they do so? Does
penalizing such students constitute problematic cancel culture?
3)What about students who belong to student organizations that issue statements that are deemed
anti-Semitic and/or pro-terrorist? For example, the 30 student organizations at Harvard? Should
employers refuse to hire/fire them?
4) What about alleged “doxing” of individual students who issued or were otherwise associated
with controversial statements? For example, sound trucks with the students’ names and faces
displayed, driving/parking near campus?
5) Florida Governor Ron DeSantis called for the disbanding of campus chapters of Students for
Justice in Palestine (SJP), and others – including some major Jewish organizations – have urged
10
university presidents to investigate their campus SJP chapters for potential violations of federal
and state laws that bar “material support” for foreign terrorist organizations. Do these anti-SJP
measures violate the First Amendment?
6)Given controversies about university Presidents’ statements about the terrorist attacks and
Israel’s response, there has been increasing support for universities adopting positions of
institutional neutrality, and hence not making statements about general political issues that don’t
directly affect the university itself – along the lines of the 1967 Kalven Report adopted at the
University of Chicago, as well as the Princeton Principles adopted in 2023. Do you endorse this
approach?
7)Could you comment on some of the specific situations that have arisen, as to the free speech
dimensions (given the constant stream of such incidents, this list is incomplete):
--A Resident Assistant in a dormitory at Wellesley College issuing an anti-Zionist
statement.
--A faculty member at Stanford reportedly dividing students into Jewish, Palestinian, and
other identity groups.
--A faculty member issuing a threatening statement against “Zionist journalists”
--A video appearing to show a Harvard student being surrounded and insulted by anti-
Israel demonstrators
--A Cornell student who was arrested and is being subject to federal criminal prosecution
for antisemitic, threatening online posts
--Columbia University’s suspension of two student organizations – SJP (Students for
Justice in Palestine) and JVP (Jewish Voices for Peace) for allegedly violating regulations
limiting campus demonstrations
--Students at NYU and elsewhere tearing down and/or defacing posters of Israeli
hostages
--Students at Harvard and elsewhere occupying administrative offices
--Students at MIT and elsewhere shouting slogans about the Hamas-Israel conflict in
class
8)Regarding the three university Presidents’ controversial answers to Congressional questioning
about anti-semitic expression on their campuses on December 5, 2023….
--Weren’t the Presidents correct when they answered that whether speech “calling for the
genocide of Jews” is/is not protected depends on the context?
--Were their answers problematic for other reasons?
--Were these hearings – including the aftermath, with two of the three Presidents having
resigned (as of 1/4/24, when this question was written) – positive or negative for academic
freedom/campus free speech?
9)What steps should higher education institutions take to reduce anti semitism, as well as other
forms of bias, consistent with academic freedom/free speech?
Questions about academic freedom/free speech on campus generally
11
1)Do the First Amendment principles that apply in the community at large also apply on the
campuses of public colleges and universities?
2)What about private colleges and universities; what obligations do they have to protect free
speech rights of members of their communities?
3)Could you summarize the distinction between protected and unprotected speech in campus
settings such as malls and quads (in other words, parts of the campus that are comparable to
public parks – in contrast to, for example, classrooms or laboratories)?
4)Could you summarize the distinctive free speech regimes that govern other campus settings –
other than malls and quads – for example, classrooms, libraries, and dormitories?
4)May faculty members be punished for controversial expression when they aren’t acting
specifically in their capacity as professors or scholars – for example, on social media or during
demonstrations?
5) What is “academic freedom”? How does it differ from freedom of speech?
6)What steps should universities take to improve the state of academic freedom/free speech o
their campuses?
7)What about government efforts that are undertaken for the stated purpose of protecting
academic freedom – for example, Congressional hearings into the state of academic freedom on
specific campuses, Congressional subpoenas of university documents concerning academic
freedom, and executive orders requiring universities to take certain steps to protect academic
freedom? Are these kinds of steps positive or negative in terms of academic freedom?
8) What is the relationship between academic freedom and diversity, equity and inclusion?
9) Consistent with faculty members’ academic freedom, what limits – if any – may be imposed
on what and how they teach? For example, may faculty members be barred from indoctrinating
their students? May faculty members be required to expose their students to diverse viewpoints,
and/or to permit students to express diverse viewpoints? May faculty members be barred from
expressing their own viewpoints in their classroom/teaching capacity?
10) When faculty members express views outside the classroom – for example, in social media
posts or podcast interviews – concerning matters such as race, ethnicity, or religion, which make
certain students fear that the faculty member will discriminate against them in class, should the
students have any remedy – for example, the right not to be enrolled in any class that professor
teaches? (For example, what if a professor posts statements on social media about the Hamas-
Israel conflict, which are generally critical of Israelis and Jews, or of Palestinians and Muslims,
causing Israeli, Jewish, Palestinian, and/or Muslim students to fear discriminatory treatment?)
Questions about academic freedom/free speech at law schools in particular
12
1)What is the significance of new ABA Standard 208 (adopted in February 2024), requiring law
schools to “adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom,” and
that “encourage and support the free expression of ideas”?
2)What is the interrelationship between ABA Standard 208, and recent amendments to ABA
Standards 303(b) and (c)(effective fall 2023), which respectively require law schools to “provide
substantial opportunities to students for…the development of a professional identity,” and to
educate students “on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism”?
3)Concerning academic freedom matters – including exposure to ideas and expressions that
students may well find offensive and upsetting – should the standards in law schools differ from
those in higher education more generally? Law schools are training lawyers to carry out unique
professional responsibilities in our system of law and justice; what impact does that have on
these academic freedom issues?
4)Some law students, with support from some law professors, have maintained that they should
not be required to read and/or discuss judicial opinions (or other materials) that contain racist
epithets, or that contain racist ideas, such as the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dred Scott v.
Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson. What is your view?
Questions about free speech rights in public and school libraries
1)You have often spoken to librarians’ groups, including the American Library Association and
state library associations, and you have explained why free speech rights in libraries are of
special personal importance to you. Could you share that background with us?
2)And why are these rights of special importance to all individuals, and to our democracy?
3)What First Amendment standards govern removals of books from public and school libraries?
4)Many state and local governments are seeking to restrict certain materias from school and
public libraries on the ground that they contain illegal sexual content, using terms such as
“obscenity” and “pornography.” What sexual expression may government restrict, consistent
with these concepts or any others? In particular, please explain the following concepts:
a. Pornography
b. Child pornography
c. Obscenity
d. Material that is “harmful to minors”
5)What steps can librarians and members of the public take to increase support for First
Amendment rights in libraries?
Questions about minors’ free speech rights, including in public schools
1)What First Amendment rights do minors and school students have? Does government have
special power to restrict these rights – more so than for older adults?
13
2)To what extent may schools restrict/punish student speech that occurs outside of school
premises, and beyond school hours, on the rationale that the speech has an adverse impact on the
school (for example, speech that critiques school officials or policies)?
3)To what extent may schools restrict/punish speech in student newspapers, theater productions,
art exhibits, and other school-related student expression?
4)Regarding school curricula, what First Amendment standards govern the inclusion/exclusion
of materials?
5)What First Amendment rights do K-12 teachers have?
6)A growing number of state and local governments have sought to impose age verification
requirements for accessing social media and other online expression. Do these restrictions
violate the First Amendment?
7) Do restrictions on minors’ access to certain expressive materials violate the constitutional
rights of their parents/guardians?
