. >> now as we look back at juris prudence, in religious exercise was something inherent in a human being, in an individual. corporations can't go to church. they can't wear certain garb, they can't perform rituals. >> i was enter waded to the government's side of the case. but at this point whether corporations could exercise religion, i was not on the government side. we all know that corporations can corporate for religious reasons, universities, charities, they are just as artificial as hobby lobby or general motors. they have a corporate status but we always recognized that religious institutions could organize in a corporate form. so what was new here was not act actual to art you official. it was the artificial to at official. >> so hobby lobby is more like notre dame than general motors because it's not closely held. >> no, no, that's not what you asked me before. the court emphasize this closely held point, but as a matter of legal logic this extends just as forcely to publicly held and traded corporations as closely held corporations. you won't see claims by publicly held corpor

it is respected form of juris prudence in much of the islamic world. >> very fair, yes. >> it is the way isis fighters implement it. which will blow back against them as it did in 2006 and 2007 during the surge when they alienate the iraqi people who are really not in their nature as extreme as these jihadys flowing in from the outside. so although this is a measure they are taking now, in the long run, it could work against them as it did back then. >> colonel francona, i hear the point, but at the same time, now for example seizing this crucial refinery. they are able to provide gasoline at a much cheaper price than people were getting it a few days ago. extremist groups have done so successfully, even in places like egypt. >> they will support them anyway because there is such animosity, they are looking at some way to get back to shia. but i think it is a temporary thing. and the colonel made a good point. this is a marriage of convenience. they are willing to support them right now. but just as we saw in 2006, with the anbar awakening, they said, we didn't sign up for this. we d

does this show an evolving understanding in the juris prudence that tech privacy needs its own protectionsven when it requires sacrifices. >> the court begins by saying the fourth amendment itself just requires reasonableness. the case has said ordinarily you need a warrant in all sorts of situations. there's an exception. ordinarily when you arrest someone, you don't need a warrant to arrest the person and you can search the person's pockets without a warrant, but what the court said is, yeah, but ordinarily, in the old days, when you searched a person's pocket, you didn't find their entire life. you didn't find their diary, all their business records, their love letters, pictures of them with their loved ones, perhaps even compromising pictures. so this little cell phone turns out to be something that in the old days people didn't carry their lives with them to quite the same extent. so the court said, although ordinarily police can search an arrest tea without a warrant, this is special. this is more like a diary, more like your home, more like your intimate life. justice alito said, yo

not guilty verdict, editorials around the country, this one of the darkest chapters of american juris prudencead proven clay shaw's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. i would have voted not guilty for clay shaw. >> i think that garrison feels that the end justifies the means. and if he felt if he could bring to the american people what he considered the truth about the death of their president and any means whatsoever, would be used. didn't matter much who was hurt in the process. >> i would sum it up by saying any society which allowes a man like jack kennedy to have the top of his head torn off, and then protecteds the assassins, and obstructs any inquiry, in an attempt to find the truth, is an great society.ds the assassins, and obstructs any inquiry, in an attempt to find the truth, is an great society.s the assassins, d obstructs any inquiry, in an attempt to find the truth, is an great society. replace your laptop? start with the best writing experience. make it incredibly thin. add an adjustable kickstand, a keyboard, a usb port, and the freedom of touch. and, of course, make it run micro

citizens united and mccutchen have reversed this trend and returned first amendment juris prudence to its basic principles. cries from the reform community about how the roberts' court has ignored rprecedent and rewritte the first amendment are simply mistaken. my third and final point is that the self-styled reform community is trying to read into the first amendment their own view of what democratic government should be. by its language, intention and the precedent applying it, the first amendment protects the marketplace of ideas, promoting the most robust discussion possible, with the assumption that a free people can assess for themselves the strength of the arguments and make informed electoral decisions. this means the government does not silence anyone, does not limit anyone, an it does not referee the debate. in recent years the self-styled reformers have begun to suggest that free and robust debate does not promote democracy, but threatens it. they contend that allowing the wealthy to spend more -- speak more can drown out the voices of the less wealthy and the very volume o

paper, we are not in the position in the paper to do all of the work and analytical juries -- juris prudence to come up with an answer. that being said, i think absolutely. i think there are other scholars and theorists that could be very helpful to us. i love ron fuller. we just didn't have a chance to get to it in this draft. that is definitely something i would look at. >> before, jack, i don't know if you want to say anything in response to ryan's question about fuller. i don't have that much to say other than this is something i will -- we will go back to it and think very carefully about it. but yeah this is reiterating charisma's point. hercules jumped out at us because it is the closest thing you'd get to like this is where hercules is not a robot. but it shares a lot of the same features that we could imagine of a robot. that was one of the reasons why -- found its place there for sure. one more point since charisma brought it up. for us what we hoped was part of an interesting contribution with this paper was that people who are commenting in this field and it is a good example of

you've got to be prosecuted in order to challenge the statute, which is standard juris prudence in americand said when the statute punishes speech and when you're going to use the same speech again in the future and are likely to be a defendant again in the future, you can challenge that. this was a unanimous decision. it's not on the merits. the supreme court didn't decide whether or not statement the democrat is in favor of paying for abortions is true. it didn't decide that the ohio statute is unconstitutional. it decided that you can challenge that statute whether you're being prosecuted or not. >> okay. moving forward then, who is responsible then for establishing truth or not? >> the voters. individuals decide whether or not statements made in the political campaign are truthful. because the whole purpose of the first amendment, elisabeth, is to keep the government out of the business of deciding whether statements are true or false, accurate or inaccurate. it's up to the listener to decide. in this case the political campaign, the listeners are the voters, and they decide by the way