On April 10, the Heterodox Academy, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), Cornellians United for Free Speech, and the Cornell Review co-sponsored a showing of a documentary film reflecting the career of First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams ‘56. The film originally aired on PBS.
The 90-minute biographical film, directed by Yael Melamede, covered the major cases that built Abrams’ reputation as a First Amendment lawyer. The film starts with his defense of the Brooklyn Museum of Art that planned a controversial exhibit, which angered then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In 1999, Giuliani threatened to take millions of city funding away from the Museum if it proceeded with the exhibit. Abrams successfully argued that the exhibit was protected by the First Amendment, and a judge ordered the funding restored.
The film also covered the famous New York Times v. Sullivan case, where the First Amendment protected the newspaper from libel lawsuits designed to reduce press coverage of the 1960s civil rights movement.
The film explained the key role that Abrams played in defending the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the government could not engage in the prior restraint of printing a study of the history of the Vietnam War.
The film covered cases where Abrams defended journalists who tried to protect their confidential sources. People call such claims “Journalist privilege.” Abrams was not successful in defending Myron A. Farber, who refused to disclose his sources in 1978. Similarly, Abrams lost his court case to protect New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who in 2005 claimed Journalist privilege in order to protect her source from disclosure. However, Abrams did successfully protect Nina Totenberg when she was asked to disclose her confidential source that uncovered the Clarence Thomas – Anita Hill scandal.
In later years, Abrams developed the doctrine that corporations had constitutional rights, including the right to own billboards in downtown San Diego, California, and the right of pharmaceutical companies to advertise drugs.
Ultimately, the government’s right to regulate campaign contributions collided with corporations’ free speech rights in Citizens United v. FEC, where the Supreme Court upheld the right of corporations to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.
The final portion of the film focused upon the tension between the right to privacy and free speech. Abrams defended a facial-recognition company called “Clearview AI” against privacy advocates. Social media also poses First Amendment problems. When asked how to combat false content on social media, Abrams replied, “more speech.”
Following the film, Robert C. Platt ‘73 noted that Abrams was not the only Cornell alumnus active in First Amendment law and listed a number of others.
Ross Marchand, Program Counsel, Policy Reform for FIRE, said that the Expressive Activity Policy was the major free speech issue at Cornell today. Marchand explained how much the policy has improved since the first draft. Platt noted that two days earlier, the University Assembly approved a resolution calling for the UA to monitor how the Expressive Activity Policy will be implemented and that the UA should play a role in reviewing any further changes to the policy.
Marcand and Platt each gave their own assessment of the recent Trump Administration action to suspend $1 Billion in research grant funding at Cornell. Marchand analyzed the nine specific demands that were made on Columbia and assumed that similar demands would arrive at Cornell. Platt emphasized that this should be viewed as a call to engagement by all aspects of the Cornell community. There should be open and free discussion of which Trump Administration concerns have merit and what should be protected by academic freedom. Ultimately, Cornell’s response should be widely debated rather than sorted out in a back room of Day Hall.
Marchand discussed FIRE’s rating of universities and what Cornell could do to get higher ratings.
A member of the audience asked what could be done to improve the “cancel culture” at Cornell and to prevent students from “piling on” other students who are viewed as transgressing some undocumented norm. Platt suggested better free speech training as a part of new student orientation.
Marchand discussed the ongoing task force on institutional voice, and Platt noted that there were public listening sessions scheduled in the second half of April for students, staff, and faculty.
Cornell Library users can access the documentary here.
