at that point, it is thought was the leak, maybe from brandeis back to wilson, brandeis being newly appointede administration pulled the prosecution. it was the schenck case that came for the first time to be actually decided. in short order, after the oral argument the justices concluded they were unanimous and justice holmes was to assign the opinion. we got to the eugene debs case, four different cases in short order. it was in the fourth one that holmes started to express real doubts about how far the government was going, and whether it was running wild with his notion of clear and present danger. susan: it was a 9-0 decision against schenck and for the united states government. there were four basic questions the court was asked to decide. first, should charles schenck's conviction be overturned? the answer was, are his political statements protected by his statements? thomas: they are protected by his expression but not by the constitution. susan: are there different standards for freedom of speech during peace time and war? thomas: holmes actually says this is significant, and it rela

you went to college at brandeis. i want you to tell the story of what was an extraordinary 10 days trip to mississippi while you are at brandeis in 1962. guest: the moral of that story as you do not go to college for the courses. at least that was my story. there is a man named william hicks who was on a fellowship at brandeis. he was one of the very few white lawyers in mississippi to represent what were then called negros in civil rights cases. for some reason, he invited me and two other guys, and they were guys. people. to drive down to mississippi with him in february of 1962. and just drive around the state and meet people. february of 1962 was the very beginning of what would later be a great civil rights. in mississippi. in the ten-day. we literally met, talked, dined with all the people who are later critical figures in the civil rights situation in mississippi, including the great fannie lou hamer, medgar evers, who was murdered a year later. james silver who wrote a classic book, " mississippi and the clos

you went to college at brandeis. i want you to tell the story of what was an extraordinary 10 days trip to mississippi while you are at brandeis in 1962. guest: the moral of that story as you do not go to college for the courses. at least that was my story. there is a man named william hicks who was on a fellowship at brandeis. he was one of the very few white lawyers in mississippi to represent what were then called negros in civil rights cases. for some reason, he invited me and two other guys, and they were guys. people. to drive down to mississippi with him in february of 1962. and just drive around the state and meet people. february of 1962 was the very beginning of what would later be a great civil rights. in mississippi. in the ten-day. we literally met, talked, dined with all the people who are later critical figures in the civil rights situation in mississippi, including the great fannie lou hamer, medgar evers, who was murdered a year later. james silver who wrote a classic book, " mississippi and the clos

on the public side was justice brandeis. brandeis understood the public/private framework, but unlike nick reynolds he valued public rights over private rights. he voted for the government because he appreciated for the government of motor vehicles, which are very dangerous at the time. in national movement on street and highway for what's going on at the same time of the government are the supreme court deciding the case. i want to note here that scholars had been confused or puzzled by the vote in light of his famous dissent. his dissent was the very first time that the supreme court opinion mentioned the right to be left alone. that is the right to privacy. so the question that is asked is why did they appreciate the privacy when the government eavesdropped on a phone conversation, but not when it searched a car. he wrote that the right to privacy was not absolute and did not prohibit the public's interest. the privacy rights were threatened and he was a technophobe. he almost wrote that the advent of television would be

for brandeis, they were dangerous machines that had to be regulated. there was no limit on the governments right to seize and search vehicles without a warrant which he made clear in a opinion just two years after carol. as you can see, the problem with the private and public framework is that you could not take into account both aspects of a car. it was one or the other. individuals had to have some rights. even when they travel on public roads. the government needed to have the ability to investigate and enforce laws. this distinction did not offer guidance for balancing individual rights in the public interest. what the chief justice have to do? he did away with the public and public binary. instead, he adopted a standard based on reasonableness. after all, the text of the fourth amendment did not prohibit all search and seizures. just unreasonable ones. rather than asking whether a car was private or public, the relevant question was whether the car search was reasonable. taft explains that if it was possible to get a warrant it would be reasonable

justifying such an extreme approach to free speech and even though as we know just as homes and justice brandeis embraced an approach somewhere like that very early on it's not even clear. they would have carried it as far as we do today. so i think a lot of a lot of first amendment jurors prudence and this issue is the product is the product of learning for our own mistakes and learning we cannot trust ourselves and in particular. we cannot trust yourself to allow the majority to decide what points of view can be prohibited. yes, you can regulate speech in terms of the time place and manner of speech not based on the message being communicated as low as it's reasonable. but as soon as the government picks out particular points of view, whether it be anti-war speech or communist speech or civil rights speech or hate speech. we don't trust ourself to do that. and we therefore air dramatically on the side of guaranteeing free speech and there's a cost to that. it means we're allowing speech that does cause all sorts of harm in society, but what we've learned is that better to deal with those farms

response as the us tradition is that holocaust denial would have to be protected because as just as brandeis said in the whitney case as long as there's time enough for deliberation the best response to evil councils is a good and we have faith that counter speech is better than suppression. do you believe that the us should resist efforts to adopt more european style provisions of hate speech and why? so i do believe that we should resist that and i think the supreme court would certainly agree with that proposition. the reason why is simply that i don't trust our government. with the power to decide what ideas to suppress. again, looking back at our own experience that's been abused repeatedly. over time and being able to define, you know, what is what is hate speech right is hate speech criticizing african-american's, you know latinas asian americans jews poles gaze straits married people on married people and maybe it goes on and on and i think that in the end we are better off allowing that kind of speech to be spoken and responding to it and looking for education and truth and i think

in 1916, louis brandeis became the first just as he was jewish. >> 51 years later the first black justiceas appointed to the court. sandra day o'connor became the first woman in 1981. sonia sotomayor in 2009 became the first just as he was hispanic. -- the first just as he was hispanic. ---- the first justice who was hispanic. >> how do you become a supreme court justice? >> it is pretty hard. there are three basic steps. first, there has to be an opening or vacancy on the supreme court. the supreme court can only have nine people at a time. after a vacancy, it is up to the president to pick someone through a process called nomination. then, it is up to the senate to vote on the nominee the president selected. the decisions justices make a very important. they affect everyone in the country. i had the privilege of being a law clerk to justice sonia sotomayor. she is one of the nine justices on the supreme court. every year, she hires young bloggers like myself -- young lawyers like myself. law clerks help justices write judicial opinions and do research and get ready to hear the cases bro

in 1916, louis brandeis became the first just as he was jewish. >> 51 years later, thurgood marshallas the first black justice. sandra day o'connor became the first woman justice in 1980 one. -- 1981. and sondra sotomayor was the first just as he was hispanic. let's go to our next question. >> hi my name is dominic and i'm in the 10th grade. how does a person get to become a supreme court justice? luke: that is a great question and it is hard to become a supreme court justice. there are three basic steps. first, there has to be a vacancy on the supreme court. the supreme court can only have nine people on it at a time. after a vacancy happens it is up to the president pick someone through a process called nomination. and then it is up to the senate to vote on the nominee. decisions that the justices make are very important. they affect everyone in the entire country. i have had the privilege of being a law clerk to justice sotomayor. she has one of the nine justices, and every year she hires some young lawyers like myself to work with her on the supreme court as law clerks. law clerk

he is the medical director for opioid policy research at brandeis university, and co—founder of physiciansoid prescribing. he said the money from these settlements will be used by states to shoulder the burden of the opioid epidemic. i would say every state in the us is struggling with the opioid crisis and it is a very expensive problem, spanning access to treatment is expensive and dealing with all of the health and social consequences of an epidemic of addiction is expensive, and it makes sense for states to look at the companies that created this mess for the money to help clean it up. are you happy enough to see settlements like this? you are obviously pursuing or interested in these pharmaceuticals going on trial as such, but if the money is made available, that is the most important thing, isn't it? it is not really the most important thing. first off, you have $200 million, when you consider the damage that was done byjohnson &johnson in the state of new york, i think it is actually a small sum, but we really need a lot more than money from these companies. we need to look very car

the revolution starts at brandeis. >> it is incorporation. it's in academia, it's an entertainment.quits his began because he wrote a nice tweet about the book. that's where we are. it as a war on speech, it's a war on ideas, it's a war on thoughts. >> i joke about it, but it is terrifying. if you start to lose the forest or the trees, what is actually racist. what is actually hate speech. that is unfortunate especially at 76,000. to number ideas up next. ♪ you need a financial plan that can help grow and protect your money. an annuity can help cover essential expenses in retirement, so you can live the life you want. this is what an annuity can do. learn more at protectedincome.org. stay restless, with the icon that does the same. the rx crafted by lexus. lease the 2021 rx 350 for $449 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer. >> it's female friday and we we're answering your questions. >> like this question from djp. >> what was your favorite under 25-cent candy when you were growing up? >> smarties. >> you unroll them like that. you unroll them fast and then

the revolution starts at brandeis. >> it is incorporation. it's in academia, it's an entertainment.are. it as a war on speech, it's a war on ideas, it's a war on thoughts. >> i joke about it, but it is terrifying. if you start to lose the forest or the trees, what is actually racist. what is actually hate speech. that is unfortunate especially at 76,000. to number ideas up next. ♪ people everywhere living with type 2 diabetes are waking up to what's possible with rybelsus®. ♪ you are my sunshine ♪ ♪ my only sunshine... ♪ rybelsus® works differently than any other diabetes pill to lower blood sugar in all 3 of these ways... increases insulin... decreases sugar... and slows food. the majority of people taking rybelsus® lowered their blood sugar and reached an a1c of less than 7. people taking rybelsus® lost up to 8 pounds. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help ri

friedman and got his phd and spent most of the '60s and '70s teaching various schools, amherst, brandeis, ucla and cornell. and then in 1980 he joined the hoover institution which is at stanford university and that's where he has been ever since. >> host: if there were no hoover institution, what a mainstream university have hired him? >> guest: atom could've worked at any college any university wanted to. this is man, he turned down offers from places like dartmouth, the university of wisconsin. he could've gotten tenure and worked at any economics department in the country. he was quite talented scholar in his discipline before he ever begin writing about racial controversies and so forth. just a number of academic publications and so forth surpassed most of those people in the field. what tom ran into trouble with was the faculty. the college administrators. part of the problem was this was the 1960s, , dennis, and higher education was changing. you had a women's rights movement, a gay-rights movement, and antiwar movement, all these things come together. college campus of her being u

abram had been the president of brandeis university and had been chairman of the fund for a time. i think there was a a forgetting his first name, but dr. patterson who had been one of the early executive directors who remained on the board for a number of years after they launched the phrase after fletcher's tenure as executive director on the fund because i was and as reading these these transcripts of these oral history was trying to piece together the truth as best as i could which we all you know, that's what we all do as historians, you know, we do our best with the sources that we have and we make an informed conclusion in the end with which with what we hope is some some degree of veracity, but we we're all aware that we're doing the best again. we're doing the best we can with our sources but in this case there was a secondary book the i think the author's name is mary beth. gassman. i think she's a sociologist if i'm not mistaken and she had written a history of the fund that came out probably at this point about 20 years ago. where although arthur fletcher appears in th

from depaul university, earned his phd from harvard university and taught at barner college and brandeis university. his career of government service began in 1975 and ended with his retirement in 2010. he served on the senate judiciary committee, moved to the defense department and retired after advising the fbi national security branch on intelligence matters. dr. alice was a frequent writer and much on abraham lincoln. he helped organize events, including the commit -- along with programs at the national archives. he was on the boards of the abraham lincoln organization and the lincoln forum. he volunteered with the national park service as a speaker and guide at ford's theater. he was generous and kind. he spoke with the authority established by years of study and his inherent intimacy with the subject derived from his illinois roots. one of his friends said i am a better person and lincoln scholar because of john ellis. the board of the lincoln group has decided to honor his memory with a program that unites his passion and love for ford's theater. we are announcing the john ellis s

from harvard university and taught at barnard college and brandeis university. his career of government service began in 1975 and ended with his retirement in 2010. he served on the staffs of both the senate intelligence and judiciary committees, move to the defense department and retired after advising the fbi national security branch on intelligence matters. dr. eleth was a frequent writer and lecturer on the life and times of abraham lincoln. the commemoration of the first and second lincoln inaugurals with programs at the national archives. on the boards at the lincoln forum and association and volunteered with the national parks service as a speaker and guide here at ford's theatre. john was generous and kind and devoted his time to furthering our knowledge and insight into our favorite president. he spoke with the authority established by his years of study and his inherent intimacy with the subject derived from his illinois roots. one of his friends spoke for many saying i am a better person and lincoln scholar because of john eleth. the board of the linc

the brandeis is next. i don't feel sick why should i cure my hepatitis c?you can stay on track and be cured in only 8 weeks with mavyret. you can keep your momentum with mavyret. before starting mavyret your doctor will test if you've had hepatitis b which may flare up and cause serious liver problems during and after treatment. tell your doctor if you've had hepatitis b, a liver or kidney transplant, other liver problems, hiv-1, or other medical conditions, and all medicines you take. don't take mavyret with atazanavir or rifampin, or if you've had certain liver problems. if you've had or have serious liver problems other than hep c, there's a rare chance they may worsen. signs of serious liver problems may include yellowing of the skin, abdominal pain or swelling, confusion, and unexplained bleeding or bruising. tell your doctor if you develop symptoms of liver disease. common side effects include headache and tiredness. now, i can live life cured and feel free. 8 weeks was faster than i thought. now, it's your turn to keep your momentum with mavyret. tal

the word police man is now on a list of offensive words at brandeis university.s is true climate change and it's one the parents are feeling first, because their closeness to the toxic wind. maybe it's time for an educational tea party. maybe it's time to occupy the classroom. let's make our schools and maybe our military crt-free zones where students and soldiers can learn the full story of america. there are better ways to establish racial harmony and true equality in this country and if children are indeed our future, it's time to keep the adults in charge for a bit longer and let the parents take control. [scattered applause] >> here he is! let's welcome tonight's guest! this former volleyball start keeps insisting the panels get up and rotate. fox nation host, abby ported even his thank-you notes or bestsellers. up in the air author, welcome per -- walter byrne! he switches to a shoulder holster on casual friday, former cia operative and [indiscernible] group, ceo mike baker! and she recently walked down the aisle to get a flight attendant to bring her more

number two, brandeis university is cracking down on what they consider to be violent language by banning these are phrases of oppressive language. rachel. >> yes, and so is -- they said if you are following the american dream, the american dream is still alive, there's all kinds of other things. hard work, if you work hard in america that is also, you know, oppressive language. so listen, none of us should listen to any of this language for the more they say, the more we should. >> look at those over on the side of the screen. take a stab at it, take a shot at it. we are back to the era of the stone age. where caveman grunting at each other. and no one is offended by her grounds, and that is the end result of this entire movement. i mean, we're out of here. we are on to number three. during today's infrastructure bill announcement, look at this. there was a noticeable person excluded from the crowd. we need to get some light on him. open the temperature here. what you can see there, if it was brighter, was all the senators crowded around joe biden. it's a bipartisan group, but here's the

almost a hundred years ago, justice brandeis -- justice kagan: well, you can only ride on the history, i think, mr. waxman, for so long. i mean, a great deal has changed since a hundred years ago in the way that student-athletes are treated. and, you know, i'll take you back to justice alito's question and the kind of payments that they're given. you know, a great deal has changed even since board of regents, let alone a hundred years ago. so i guess it doesn't move me all that much that there's a history to this if what is going on now is that competitors as to labor are combining to fix prices. mr. waxman: so look -- the way -- the rule of reason applies here, this court has said, because sports leagues produce a product that cannot be produced without agreement. and this is, as your question points out -- justice kagan: for sure --that's true about some things. i mean, you know, sports leagues have to get together to figure out the rules of the game, how many people are going to be on the court at any one time. so, of course, there are things that there needs to be cooperation for.

he received his undergraduate degree at brandeis university and a jd at case western reserve university school of law cleveland ohio and i welcome both witness is. >> the procedure will be well known to the members but i will repeat it for the guests after we swear in the witnesses, each will be given five minutes to provide opening statements. there will be a round of questions with each senator having five minutes and i ask them to please do their best to remain within the allotted time. we will start with the administrator will all of the witnesses please stand. raise your right hand. do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the whole truth, nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect that the witnesses all have responded in the affirmative. they will each be given an opportunity for opening statements and then i will ask a round of questions and invite the senator to come up and chair the remainder of the hearing as the chair of the immigration subcommittee we have done this for the full committee and subcommittee so thank you.

brandeis university prevention advocacy and resource center produced a list of oppressive words. a go instead. walk in, that is ableis at language, try drop in instead. pleasing, while or insane, no, these words are offensive to people with mental disabilities. use uncool instead. he or she, no, use they are ask the person you are talking to which pronoun they prefer obviously. i am out of touch, i find this kind of language policing, laughable, the product of a mind that has yet to understand the real world, a mind that takes offense wherever possible, they want to be offended. it gives an issue in signals how wonderful they are. the modern expression is virtues signaling. try this. we are taking a shot with this wild and crazy show but i think we are killing it. we are insane. if you are oppressed by those words you don't belong in a university. ♪♪ stuart: you are smiling, good. that means my take worked. that kind of language policing doesn't end. in california these guys, your state want to remove the word he from state laws. have at it, go. >> it is insane. absolutely insane

ainsley: brandeis university in massachusetts releasing a list of repressive language that students needu guys. brian: it's about time. i have been calling for this forever. joining us to react "fox & friends" co-host peter -- is this a god send? >> well, you know, will and pete have been on prime for the last couple weeks and i have been texting them you are killing it. and i had no idea that i was repressing them every time i was doing it. and who knew that we -- what is it you can't say african-american now? is it only be black or is it the reverse? i didn't understand. steve: you can't say picnic, you can't say rule of thumb or things like that as well. you can't say outdoor -- you can say outdoor eating instead of picnic because pete, apparently, some of these students got together and came up with this list of things that throughout history at one point in history were offensive items. and so centuries later we can't use those things? pete: well, let's try this lady and gentlemen this segment is insane, whoever he or she is who made these rules is killing it for the wokesters as a