Free speech advocates nationwide were puzzled when they heard Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would be the keynote speaker at today’s Newhouse III dedication.

‘I was kind of surprised that he would make a speech focusing on the First Amendment,’ said Tony Mauro, a Legal Times Supreme Court correspondent who has covered the court for several publications during the last 27 years. ‘Not that he is an enemy of the First Amendment, but the idea of focusing on that subject early in his tenure seemed unusual. Usually once they’re on the court, justices speak about issues like this in their decisions, not in speeches.’

Syracuse University will host the chief justice today as he dedicates the S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications third building, which features the First Amendment in big, bold letters on its exterior.

Roberts has only decided a few First Amendment cases while on the Supreme Court bench. Experts stress it is still early to make any strong judgments on his record. But several of Roberts’ decisions and arguments have troubled First Amendment advocates across the country:

– As deputy solicitor general, Roberts co-wrote the federal government’s brief in the 1990 Supreme Court case United States v. Eichman arguing in support of the Flag Protection Act of 1989. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the law – which banned flag burning – unconstitutional.

– Roberts has voted in favor of First Amendment claims in only two of seven freedom of expression cases since he joined the court in September 2005.

– Last summer, he voted both for and against First Amendment claims in two of his most controversial freedom of speech cases.

+ In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, the court ruled that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group’s free speech rights were violated when they were not allowed to air political ads mentioning a candidate that was up for election.

+ In Morse v. Frederick, more commonly known as the ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus’ case, the court ruled that schools can prohibit student expression if it can be interpreted as advocating drug use.

‘I can certainly say in the current Supreme Court term the chief justice has not been a friend to the First Amendment as it applies to public school students,’ said Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center. ‘In fact, I think it’s fair to see he’s got a notion of the level of First Amendment for students in public schools that is very troubling.’

So for Roberts to dedicate a building with that very amendment wrapped around it appeared a bit odd to its national supporters.

But many of the campus’ most fervent First Amendment advocates say they are thrilled that Roberts – someone of such national stature and so close to free speech issues – is speaking today.

‘I think it’s exciting,’ said Newhouse Associate Dean Joel Kaplan. ‘And I hope he says some provocative and interesting things.’

Roberts’ speech, they hope, will jumpstart a yearlong dialogue about the First Amendment at a time when, as they describe it, the country and the campus need it most.

‘One of the reasons that I wanted the First Amendment somewhere in the building is that this is such a critical time,’ said Newhouse Dean David Rubin. ‘We’re in a period where national security concerns are being used almost daily to limit access to information, to limit publication of information, to limit gathering of information.’

Kaplan said he would like to see SU free of such infringements.

‘We have an environment here where we have a chancellor who thinks that free speech is now like a secondary freedom,’ said Kaplan, a known critic of Chancellor Nancy Cantor and her actions in the HillTV events in fall 2005. ‘I’m hoping she will be listening to the chief justice when he speaks on the First Amendment.’

With only two years on the Supreme Court bench, Roberts’ relationship with the First Amendment is not yet clear. But some early patterns can be seen, experts say.

As a scholar at the non-profit educational organization, Washington D.C.-based First Amendment Center, Ronald Collins studies and analyzes court decisions regarding freedom of expression.

‘I cannot emphasize enough that it is still very early in his career,’ Collins said. ‘But so far, the two areas where he seems most vigilant in defending the First Amendment are in commercial speech and campaign expenditures.’

On June 27, Roberts decided two free speech cases resulting in two opposite outcomes, both extremely controversial.

In FEC v. Wisconsin, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that a Wisconsin anti-abortion group’s free speech rights had been violated when they were banned from airing political ads.

‘Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor,’ Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

This will not be forgotten, said Legal Times reporter Mauro, who is also a legal correspondent for the First Amendment Center’s Web site.

‘That’s the kind of phrase that is going to be repeated back to him in briefs for decades to come,’ he said.

But the same day, Roberts ruled against the speaker in one of his most controversial First Amendment cases to date. In Morse v. Frederick, the court ruled 5-4 in favor of an Alaska high school principal who had suspended a student for holding up a homemade banner reading ‘Bong Hits 4 Jesus.’

‘His ruling in Morse v. Frederick suggests a cramped view of the First Amendment when it comes to student expression,’ Collins said.

This inconsistency between his statement in the FEC case decision and his ruling in the ‘Bong hits’ case brought Roberts under fire by First Amendment advocates and newspaper editorials across the country for the statement, which many called hollow.

‘It was that kind of term for the First Amendment: soaring rhetoric on one hand, less-than-positive results on the other,’ Mauro wrote of Roberts’ statement in an article on the First Amendment Center Web site.

Several Newhouse professors also said they were troubled by the court’s decision in Morse v. Frederick.

As a communications law professor, Kaplan described the ‘Bong hits’ decision as very narrow, but said he is worried people will use it as justification to further censor student speech.

‘These are our future citizens of America, and if they can’t learn in high school, certainly in college, the value of free speech and free press, then we as a society and as a government and as a country will be in a lot of trouble,’ Kaplan said.

Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens was also troubled by the court’s decision. He wrote in his dissenting opinion that with the Morse decision, ‘the court does serious violence to the First Amendment.’

But Roberts’ less-than-clear stance on the First Amendment is all the more reason to listen to his speech, said Newhouse professor Barbara Fought, who is also director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at SU. The center aims to educate the SU community as well as the public on the importance of free speech through educational events and research.

‘The chief justice certainly isn’t the absolutist on free speech as we have seen of justices of years past. But I think he takes a very measured view of the First Amendment and looks at things on a case-by-case basis,’ she said. ‘I’m going to be really intrigued about what he will say about the First Amendment and how he clarifies his position or how much as a jurist he is comfortable making very clear what his position is.’

Finding a speaker for the Newhouse III dedication was no simple task.

President Lyndon B. Johnson dedicated Newhouse I in 1964. Ten years later, William S. Paley, the founder of CBS, dedicated Newhouse II.

So Rubin said he knew that he needed a very strong and highly visible public figure to follow such prestigious speakers.

‘Who better to talk about the value of the First Amendment than the chief justice of the court, who is really in a position given the cases that may come to the court to interpret the meaning or reinterpret the meaning of the First Amendment,’ Rubin said. ‘In a sense, he’s a person who can help write the First Amendment since it keeps changing all the time. We think he’s just the right guy.’

Some campus free speech supporters felt otherwise.

When Newhouse senior Jordan Zakarin heard Roberts would be the Newhouse III dedication speaker, he was confused.

‘I actually wrote Dean Rubin a letter expressing my concern and confusion, asking why someone who has not been thus far such a big defender of free speech is at such an important occasion,’ said Zakarin, a television, radio and film major. He said he received a respectful response from Rubin within hours.

Zakarin said he realizes it is early in Roberts’ time on the bench, but still doesn’t think he’s the right choice.

‘I don’t have the problem with him speaking here. Someone that important and influential should be speaking here,’ he said. ‘But I thought the dedication should be reserved for someone who had been a staunch defender of free speech.’

In response to such criticism, Rubin said students should want to hear what Roberts has to say, whether they agree with him or not.

‘Just because you may disagree with the person about a decision doesn’t mean you shouldn’t want to listen to him,’ he said. ‘Otherwise, students would only be listening to people they already agree with, and what’s the point of that?’

From the beginning of Newhouse III’s construction, Rubin said he knew he wanted the First Amendment to be incorporated because of the current limitations of free speech and civil liberties.

Limitations of civil liberties under the Bush administration, Rubin said, can be seen almost daily and have even occurred on SU’s campus. He cited the Sept. 6 Veterans Affairs Medical Center incident, when the building’s security guards detained an SU graduate student for taking photographs of the center’s entrance.

‘This is a time when people who care a lot about free speech, as I do, must stand up and say, ‘Look, you can’t pervert the First Amendment because you think there is a terrorist behind every bush,” Rubin said.

The Newhouse III dedication, headlined by Roberts’ speech, will kick off the Newhouse School’s ‘Year of the First Amendment,’ which will feature events to give attention to the amendment’s importance in everyday life.

‘We sometimes take the First Amendment for granted,’ professor Kaplan said. ‘Most people don’t even know all of the freedoms in the First Amendment or what it means. I think any type of discussion on what it is, why it’s important, is going to be very helpful. I wish we could do it every year.’

The Newhouse community hopes Roberts’ speech will be the beginning of a long conversation.

‘This is a very scary time,’ Rubin said. ‘I hope all of it raises consciousness and gets people to think about how important this amendment is.’

Published on September 18, 2007 at 12:00 pm