Panel 4: The NetChoice Problem

We know how to think about government coercion. We have ready and familiar frameworks for evaluating how government power should be exercised against the private individual. But courts and policymakers increasingly are called to mediate between private actors with competing claims to liberty, and the analysis is perhaps more complex and uncertain. How should we evaluate such competing claims and what are the self-governance interests of citizens themselves? Do we have a good framework for resolving conflicting interests of corporations and natural citizens, and what role or responsibility does the state have in resolving those disputes?
Featuring:
-Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC
-James Burnham, President, Vallecito Capital, LLC
-Erin Hawley, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
-Casey Mattox, Vice President, Legal Strategy, Stand Together
-Prof. Todd Zywicki, George Mason University Foundation Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University
-Moderator: Hon. Trevor N. McFadden, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[@Harlem55]

Corporations do not have inalienable rights because they exist at the sole pleasure of the state and can be extinguished by the state without having used the death penalty. Therefore, it is proper to say that the rights of corps can be limited where the rights of the individual in any event may not.