Four years too late or better late than never? That is one of the questions being asked and answered in the aftermath of Twitter’s decision to suspend President Donald Trump’s personal Twitter account permanently. Regardless of where you land on the answer to that question, one thing is obvious: we are having the wrong debate on free speech. When a sitting U.S. president is banned permanently or temporarily from the most influential social media platforms, we are entering a new phase in the debate regarding free speech and the First Amendment.
If anything is clear from the recent coast-to-coast protests against the horrific killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, it is that excessive police force is not a local problem, but a national one of the highest order.
With its disproportionate impact on Black people, police brutality threatens any sense of justice as well as the peace, prosperity, security, and our very fabric as a free nation under law. Its poison spreads across all of America. While conventional thought suggests that the solution lies primarily at the local level, we believe this moment requires a national solution. …
When the news broke of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton, protecting LGBTQ people in the workplace, many reports and commentators, including myself, claimed it as an outright win for LGBTQ equality. But as I read Justice Neil Gorsuch’s textualist opinion, I realized what sort of long-term consequences for LGBTQ equality and other progressive issues — intended and unintended — could come from the decision. Despite the 6–3 ruling, we should be wary of drawing broader conclusions about the current Court’s ongoing commitment to LGBTQ equality.
Reflections on law, politics, faith, and tennis from an attorney, policy wonk, community organizer, and law professor at the USC Gold School of Law