U.S. Constitution, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The Balance Between National Security and a Free Press: From the Pentagon Papers to Wikileaks and Snowden

There has long been a tension between the need for government to protect and defend the country and the First Amendment interest of the press in informing the citizenry what government is up to. Who makes the ultimate decision as to what can be published — the government or the press? How does the media decide what national security information it should publish? This talk will include the backstory of the Pentagon Papers case — the greatest First Amendment clash in our history — where the Nixon Administration tried to stop The New York Times from publishing documents about the Vietnam War. And more recently, could or should the government have stopped — or prosecuted — Wikileaks or the news publications which distributed the Julian Assange and Edward Snowden revelations which may have imperiled our national security?

New York Times v. Sullivan: Why U.S. Libel Law is Different from the Rest of the World’s

In 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court constitutionalized libel law in an Alabama case arising from the civil rights movement. In so doing, it set a very high standard for public officials and public figures to win defamation cases. Is the “actual malice” test too harsh? Why did the Court suddenly decide that libel is subject to the First Amendment? How can public — and private — figures win libel cases? And has this affected journalistic standards? This session will also discuss why American defamation law is different from every other country’s in the world, and whether our balance between an individual’s right to his reputation and the interests of free speech is fair.

Should Insulting Hate Speech be Unlawful: From the Westboro Baptist Church to Charlie Hebdo

Incitement, provocation, blasphemy, and insulting hate speech — the legal and ethical complexities of balancing free expression and the protection of groups, individuals and ideas. What are the borders between free speech and hate speech? Should there be laws restricting hate speech? What are the ethical considerations on whether to publish offensive words? Should religion be immune from sarcastic criticism? Using the tragedy where Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were killed in Paris for cartoons mocking the prophet Mohammed and insulting Muslims, and the recent US Supreme Court case allowing the Westboro Baptist Church to demonstrate against homosexuals at military funerals, we will explore whether provocative and injurious hate speech is — and should be — protected in the U.S. and abroad.

Invasion of Privacy and “The Right to be Let Alone”: What the Press Can Publish about Celebrities — and You

A Presidential candidate’s (Gary Hart) adulterous tryst; Arthur Ashe has AIDS; Rock Hudson is gay; Patricia Bowman is allegedly raped by William Kennedy Smith. More recently, the photo of Dominique Strauss-Kahn being surrounded by NYC policemen as he walks to a hearing after being charged with sexually assaulting a hotel maid. Can the press legally — and ethically — publish facts about the private lives of celebrities? Can — and should — the press write about the embarrassing private facts of regular individuals when something they do is vaguely newsworthy or somewhat interesting? Where is the balance between the public’s right to know and the individual’s right to be left alone? Should there ever be liability for publishing true facts under the First Amendment? How come the British and American tabloid press don’t get sued every day for publishing photos and intimate facts that are hardly of legitimate public concern? A tour of the tort of Invasion of Privacy.

Canada: No Longer the Kind, Compassionate Neighbor to the North?

While the Conservative Party under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has never received much more than a third of the vote, it has held power in the country for a decade. Harper, who led a takeover of Canada’s traditional Progressive Conservative party by a much more right wing protest group, has long made no secret of his desire to fundamentally change not just how Canadians govern but also how they think about government. He has sometimes used blunt political instruments to that end, including twice shutting down Parliament to avoid votes that jeopardized his hold on power. He has overtly appointed ideological partisans to government bodies and the courts and stifled criticism from scientists and oversight bodies. But has it worked? Are Canadians, as at least one Canadian political writer argues, all Conservatives now?

The Secret Lives of Canadians

While Americans generally don’t pay much attention to Canada, America looms large, very large, in the minds of most Canadians. Every slight, every bit of praise or even attention that comes Canada’s way from the United States is potentially a news event in Canada. Canadians views about their neighbors are filled with paradoxes. President Obama is by far Canada’s favorite politician. Toronto brazenly emulates New York. But the economic and cultural power of the United States, perhaps inevitably, has also bred envy and resentment towards the United States, which, at times, can be ugly. Underlying all of it is the fact that while the differences between Canadians and Americans may often be small, they are unquestionably numerous.

The Great BlackBerry Reversal

Apple owes its status as the world’s first or second largest corporation to the iPhone. But the smartphone was arguably developed by Canada’s BlackBerry. How BlackBerry then got things so wrong is a story of misunderstanding — that software, not hardware, became the defining feature of phones — arrogance and, above all, a corporate culture that viewed wireless carriers and corporate I.T. departments, rather than users, as the customer.

Cycling’s Future After Lance Armstrong

As we all know, the introduction of genetically cloned, human hormones in the late 1980s forever changed cycling — and not for the best. Unlike earlier forms of doping, human growth hormone and the blood booster EPO brought previously unthinkable performance gains. Culminating with Armstrong’s, the new era in doping ultimately came close to destroying the sport. As cycling looks for public redemption, it’s also examining its economic structure, which is rife with instability and pressure for results.
 

Perspectives on War: The Great Strategic Thinkers

From the ships and soldiers of Ancient Greece to the special-forces and high tech drones on the battlefields of today, war has been a tragic constant, an endlessly violent contest to compel an opponent to do your political will. As 21st century military leaders contemplate future wars they often turn to the great strategic thinkers of the past.

Meet four of those great strategic thinkers — Thucydides, Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and Mao Zedong — who form the foundation of strategic education and provide the vocabulary of strategic literacy worldwide. Explore the history and wars that informed their theories and discuss how and why they remain relevant today. Learn how the great strategic theorists treated the causes, conduct, and conclusion of war.

Join Dr. Wilson and increase your strategic literacy so as a citizen you can evaluate the political purposes, political and military considerations, ways of waging war, and the immense difficulties in ending a war.

The Rise of China: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly (two 60-minute sessions)

Dr. Wilson brings his scholarly perspective to your questions on China. Is China destined to supplant the United States as the world’s sole superpower both economically and militarily? Or is the People’s Republic on the verge of imploding under the combined weight of demographics, environmental degradation, and economic mismanagement? Does China take the long view? Does it have a decades-long grand strategy for world domination, or does Xi Jinping wake up every morning worried about how to keep the Chinese Communist Party in power for another day? Where we come down on those questions depends a lot on how we assess the health of the Chinese economy and the health of China’s body politic.

Economic growth enables the rise of great powers. China’s economic growth has enabled the rapid modernization of its military and assertion of its claims in East Asia. Today, economic prosperity and regional assertiveness are inseparable from regime security.

But growth is slowing and China’s neighbors are starting to push back. In these two sessions we’ll examine the “good news” and the “bad news” of China’s rise by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of its political system, its economy, its military, and the complexities of its domestic and regional security outlook. Join Dr. Wilson and assess China’s ascendancy and get a clearer picture of whether or not China has what it takes to be a superpower.

The Treasure Fleets of the Great Ming: The Voyages of Zheng He

Contemporary China uses Admiral Zheng He’s legendary 15th century voyages as a parable for China’s “peaceful” rise and for its return to the sea. Learn about the Ming Dynasty’s motivations and political ambitions that propelled the creation of an astonishing armada of up to 250 ships (several dozen “treasure ships,” the largest wooden ships ever constructed) and 27,000 personnel. Dr. Wilson will discuss Chinese emissaries’ interactions with foreign powers and how the Ming saw their place in the world. We’ll look at the abrupt end of Admiral Zheng’s mission and the implications of Imperial China’s retreat from the sea. Gain insights into China’s current embrace of lore of the Ming Treasure Fleets so you can put China’s South China Sea and Indian Ocean affairs in perspective.