Heating Up the Energy Debate

Continuing on the Minnesota swing, I spent most of today at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter at the college's annual Nobel Conference. This year's topic is "Heating Up the Energy Debate," and this little college has brought in some of the top names of the field to talk about global warming and alternatives to carbon-based fuels.

I know virtually nothing about either topic, so it was an educational experience. But the bigger lesson is how even small colleges can do big events that draw huge crowds (6,500 this year — this at a college with about 2,000 students) and make a great statement about the school's commitment to liberal education.

I've posted some video here of the opening procession of faculty in full academic regalia. The conference continues tomorrow, after which I'll be happy to get a home-cooked meal.

Violence, Churches and the First Amendment

My field trip to Minnesota continues. I dashed up I-35 on Monday in time to see the Silha Lecturer at the University of Minnesota, this feature Robert Corn-Revere, First Amendment lawyer and author of a major treatise on mass communication law.

I don't usually learn a lot at public lectures, but Corn-Revere's was different. He spoke on "The Kids are Alright: Violent Media, Free Expression, and the Drive to Regulate," and opened with an instructive tale on Seung-Hui Cho, the student who killed 33 of his fellow Virginia Tech students last spring. As is usually the case in these shocking cases, the incident has led to calls for more regulation of violent media content.

But Cho went by the moniker of "Ax Ishmael," and some have suggested that religion might have had as much to do with the killings as violent media content. So, Corn-Revere suggested a thought experiment: What if, on the basis of religiously motivated violence, we decided to ban or simply regulate churches on the ground that we can't be sure how some unhinged individuals might twist their message?

Surely, nearly all Americans would revolt at the thought. But the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion both are protected by the First Amendment. Why are willing to sacrifice one but not the other?