Featuring Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow, Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute; Tim Lynch, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute; Alex Nowrasteh, Immigration Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Dan Mitchell, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; moderated by Peter Russo, Director of Congressional Affairs, Cato Institute.
Of all the rights the U.S. Constitution protects, courts are probably most vigilant about protecting free speech. Freedom of expression is not only a cornerstone of democratic government, but also central to the more ordinary choices citizens make in their daily lives. Yet one class of speech has been almost entirely ignored by the courts: speech by professionals engaged in their business. In the new issue of Regulation, Cato scholar Timothy Sandefur argues that the Supreme Court should make it clear that censoring professionals is intolerable.
The precautionary principle always rigs the outcome in favor of immigration restriction because it’s impossible to prove that all refugees will be harmless just like it is impossible to prove than any of us will be harmless. If the precautionary principle is a starting point for debate then those favoring refugees will always fail. No debate should be stacked this way.
American leaders have cooperated with regimes around the world that are, to varying degrees, repressive or corrupt. Such cooperation is said to serve the national interest. But these partnerships also contravene the nation’s commitments to democratic governance, civil liberties, and free markets. In Perilous Partners, authors Ted Galen Carpenter and Malou Innocent provide a strategy for resolving the ethical dilemmas between interests and values faced by Washington.
The Cato Institute has released its 2014 Annual Report, which documents a dynamic year of growth and productivity. “Libertarianism is the philosophy of freedom,” Cato’s David Boaz writes in his book, The Libertarian Mind. “It is the indispensable framework for the future.” And as the new report demonstrates, the Cato Institute, thanks largely to the generosity of our Sponsors, is leading the charge to apply this framework across the policy spectrum.
America’s High-Stakes Response to the WTO Internet Gambling Dispute
Featuring Mark Mendel, Lead Counsel for Antigua and Barbuda in US-Gambling, John H. Jackson, Georgetown University Law Center, and Sallie James, Trade Policy Analyst, Cato Institute.
The dispute between the United States and the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda over U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling has demonstrated one of the key benefits of the World Trade Organization: large and small nations alike have access to a legal system that protects their rights. But the United States has indicated that it does not intend to lift its restrictions on gambling over the Internet, in defiance of a series of clear rulings that those restrictions violate U.S. commitments to the WTO. At a time when global trade negotiations have stalled and the future of the WTO is in question, a failure to achieve resolution could deal a serious blow to the WTO’s credibility. The lead attorney for the Antiguan government and one of the world’s experts on WTO law will join a Cato trade expert to discuss this dispute and its importance for the international trading system.