This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Batchford. The Supreme Court, a decision about freedom

of speech and the decision is pending. So I welcome Professor Richard Epstein of the Hoover

Institution, a senior fellow, teaches law at NYU and the University of Chicago, writing

and defining ideas about a case that is before the court now. However, we need about freedom

of speech. We need to begin with a Supreme Court decision from many decades ago, argued

March of 43, decided June of 43, with just Mr. Justice Robert Jackson delivering the

opinion of the court. It had to do with a school district and whether or not it was a

blog, it was a powerful enough to compel speech by students who belong to the Jehovah's

witnesses. This speech compelled had to do with our pledge allegiance. So the court

rights, the Board of Education moved to dismiss the complaint, setting forth these facts and

alleging that the law and regulations are an unconstitutional denial of religious freedom

and freedom of speech and are invalid under the due process in equal protection clauses

of the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. From this extremely complicated presentation,

Richard is going to take us to the 21st century, but we begin with this idea of compelling

speech. Richard, a very good evening to you. I did not know Justice Jackson's decision

before you were highlighted. What does that tell the court about the freedom of speech

in the First Amendment and how it must guard it? Good evening to you.

Well, I mean, it's great to be here. And to start, the Jackson opinion is fraught with

a huge amount of controversy at the time. In 1940, somewhat before that, there was a case

called co-bidance in which Justice Felix Frank, but a host Jewish, right, said, in the

opinion that the need to maintain national loyalty in a time of political stress is

sufficiently strong. That we can require, in the name of national security, these Jehovah's

...