Cato Event Podcast

President Trump has indicated that he may withhold certification of Iranian compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency, along with America’s European allies, Russia, and China are all in consensus that Iran is in fact complying with its obligations under the agreement. If President Trump chooses not to certify Iranian compliance on October 15, he will initiate a process likely to unravel the JCPOA and relinquish the most intrusive nuclear inspections program in the world.All of Washington’s policy options outside the JCPOA—including reimposing economic sanctions, challenging Iranian influence in the Middle East, supporting opposition groups in hopes of regime change, and outright military action—involve serious costs and risks greater than the status quo.Join us for a discussion of the available options, their relative strengths and weaknesses, and the potential consequences of abandoning the Iran nuclear deal. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sixteen years ago, the United States initiated combat operations in Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Goals have changed marginally over the years, but they typically include defeating al Qaeda and other terrorist groups with global reach, strengthening the Afghan government and security forces to prevent the Taliban from retaking political power, and denying terrorists a safe haven. Recently, the secretary of defense noted, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now.” The United States appears set to respond with a nominal troop surge, but both the strategy and the U.S. commitment appear uncertain.Can a mini-surge reasonably achieve these or lesser goals? What costs and benefits are associated with a modest surge or the other potential policy choices, such as a negotiated settlement or completely removing U.S. military forces? What evidence do the past 16 years offer in support of the various strategies? How will Afghanistan look in another 16 years? Please join us for a wide-ranging discussion. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Trump has repeatedly signaled his intention to declare Iran in violation of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal.The problem is that Iran is in fact complying with its obligations under the deal, which significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program, imposed strict limits on what remained, and subjected Iran to the most intrusive inspections regime in the world.The alternative policy options outside the JCPOA are unappealing. In a new Cato Policy Analysis, Emma Ashford and John Glaser assess the costs of four alternatives – sanctions, challenging Iranian influence in the Middle East, supporting internal groups to foment regime change, and military action – and conclude they all carry unacceptably high risks and threaten to exacerbate the very behavior Iran hawks hope to forestall.Join us online for a discussion of these alternatives and send your questions using #CatoConnects. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) is a U.S. government program that provides resources to targeted communities, predominantly American Muslims, ostensibly to root out extremism before it results in violence. The program involves law enforcement agencies that partner with community leaders such as teachers, religious leaders, and health professionals to identify allegedly at-risk community members and steer them away from violence.The program is controversial for a variety of reasons. Is the government’s theory of radicalization sound? Is the Muslim community unfairly singled out? Are targeted communities compromising their rights by assisting the government, or is this a productive partnership? Has the election of Donald Trump changed the CVE discussion? Join us for a timely and important debate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) is a U.S. government program that provides resources to targeted communities, predominantly American Muslims, ostensibly to root out extremism before it results in violence. The program involves law enforcement agencies that partner with community leaders such as teachers, religious leaders, and health professionals to identify allegedly at-risk community members and steer them away from violence.The program is controversial for a variety of reasons. Is the government’s theory of radicalization sound? Is the Muslim community unfairly singled out? Are targeted communities compromising their rights by assisting the government, or is this a productive partnership? Has the election of Donald Trump changed the CVE discussion? Join us for a timely and important debate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment has moved to the center of American political conflict. On college campuses, students and faculty demand protection from speech and speakers. Polls show students and young people in general evince less support for free speech than previous generations had shown. In legal and public debate, the free exercise of religion conflicts with the right to marriage, thereby placing the First Amendment at the center of vitriolic cultural clashes. Moreover, the challenges for the First Amendment seemed fated to grow. Modern surveillance methods can chill speech even absent malign intent from officials. The global nature of the Internet also means that regulations arising from nations less protective of speech than the United States might become the rule for all. If this were not enough, traditional First Amendment issues such as campaign finance remain controversial during and after hard-fought elections. Cato's first conference on the First Amendment, a new biennial effort, offers provocative and thoughtful views on these issues. PANEL 4 – FREE SPEECH FOR A NEW ERASurveillance and Free SpeechMatthew Feeney, Cato InstituteExtremist Speech and Free SpeechFlemming Rose, Cato InstituteExtremist Speech and Compelled ConformityDanielle Keats Citron, University of Maryland School of Law Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment has moved to the center of American political conflict. On college campuses, students and faculty demand protection from speech and speakers. Polls show students and young people in general evince less support for free speech than previous generations had shown. In legal and public debate, the free exercise of religion conflicts with the right to marriage, thereby placing the First Amendment at the center of vitriolic cultural clashes. Moreover, the challenges for the First Amendment seemed fated to grow. Modern surveillance methods can chill speech even absent malign intent from officials. The global nature of the Internet also means that regulations arising from nations less protective of speech than the United States might become the rule for all. If this were not enough, traditional First Amendment issues such as campaign finance remain controversial during and after hard-fought elections. Cato's first conference on the First Amendment, a new biennial effort, offers provocative and thoughtful views on these issues. Poll ResultsEmily Ekins, Cato InstituteRoundtable Discussants:Jeffrey Herbst, Consultant and ScholarConor Friedersdorf, The AtlanticKmele Foster, Freethink Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment has moved to the center of American political conflict. On college campuses, students and faculty demand protection from speech and speakers. Polls show students and young people in general evince less support for free speech than previous generations had shown. In legal and public debate, the free exercise of religion conflicts with the right to marriage, thereby placing the First Amendment at the center of vitriolic cultural clashes. Moreover, the challenges for the First Amendment seemed fated to grow. Modern surveillance methods can chill speech even absent malign intent from officials. The global nature of the Internet also means that regulations arising from nations less protective of speech than the United States might become the rule for all. If this were not enough, traditional First Amendment issues such as campaign finance remain controversial during and after hard-fought elections. Cato's first conference on the First Amendment, a new biennial effort, offers provocative and thoughtful views on these issues. Free Speech, Libel, and Privacy in the Internet AgeEugene Volokh, UCLA Law School and Founder, The Volokh Conspiracy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment has moved to the center of American political conflict. On college campuses, students and faculty demand protection from speech and speakers. Polls show students and young people in general evince less support for free speech than previous generations had shown. In legal and public debate, the free exercise of religion conflicts with the right to marriage, thereby placing the First Amendment at the center of vitriolic cultural clashes. Moreover, the challenges for the First Amendment seemed fated to grow. Modern surveillance methods can chill speech even absent malign intent from officials. The global nature of the Internet also means that regulations arising from nations less protective of speech than the United States might become the rule for all. If this were not enough, traditional First Amendment issues such as campaign finance remain controversial during and after hard-fought elections. Cato's first conference on the First Amendment, a new biennial effort, offers provocative and thoughtful views on these issues. Walter Olson, Cato InstituteRobin Fretwell Wilson, University of Illinois Law SchoolJohn M. Barry, author of Roger Williams and the Creation of the American Soul Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The First Amendment has moved to the center of American political conflict. On college campuses, students and faculty demand protection from speech and speakers. Polls show students and young people in general evince less support for free speech than previous generations had shown. In legal and public debate, the free exercise of religion conflicts with the right to marriage, thereby placing the First Amendment at the center of vitriolic cultural clashes. Moreover, the challenges for the First Amendment seemed fated to grow. Modern surveillance methods can chill speech even absent malign intent from officials. The global nature of the Internet also means that regulations arising from nations less protective of speech than the United States might become the rule for all. If this were not enough, traditional First Amendment issues such as campaign finance remain controversial during and after hard-fought elections. Cato's first conference on the First Amendment, a new biennial effort, offers provocative and thoughtful views on these issues. PANEL 1 – ENDURING ISSUES AT A TIME OF CHANGEProgressivism and the First AmendmentRobert F. Bauer, New York University Law SchoolCitizens United: A Look Back and ForwardJeffrey Milyo, University of MissouriCommercial Speech as Free SpeechMartin Redish, Northwestern Law School Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.