TJ Crowson Memorial Scholarship

A legal case that shifted my perspective is Murthy v. Missouri (2024), which addressed government communication with social media companies about misinformation. While the case touched on free speech, it was not overtly political in a partisan sense. What changed for me after learning about this case was how complicated the relationship is between freedom of expression, public safety, and the digital platforms where we now communicate and get our information. The case began when a group of plaintiffs, including two states and several individuals, alleged that federal government officials had improperly pressured social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter (now X), and YouTube to remove or suppress certain content. The content in question included misinformation about COVID-19, vaccines, and the 2020 election. The plaintiffs claimed that this amounted to government censorship, in violation of the First Amendment, even though the platforms themselves made the final decisions on content moderation. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in June 2024 that the plaintiffs lacked standing. While this meant the Court did not fully decide the constitutional question of when government interaction with tech platforms crosses into unconstitutional censorship. Still, the case brought important and timely issues to the surface. Before this case, I assumed that free speech was mostly about what the government could or could not do directly, like banning books or arresting protesters. But Murthy v. Missouri made me rethink what “government action” looks like in a digital age. Is a behind-the-scenes email from a White House official suggesting that a tweet be flagged the same as a legal order to remove it? Does a pattern of pressure, even without formal demands, change the free speech landscape? What really shifted my perspective was seeing how the law is still trying to catch up with technology. The government clearly has an interest in combating dangerous misinformation especially during public health emergencies. But social media is a messy space where misinformation, satire, dissent, and harmful conspiracy theories can all blur together. Striking the right balance between fighting harm and protecting expression is incredibly complex, and the legal system does not always have clear answers. I also started thinking more critically about the power of private companies. Social media platforms are not bound by the First Amendment like the government is, but they have immense control over public discourse. When they work with government officials even informally it raises real concerns about transparency and influence. Yet if they do not work with governments, they risk enabling the spread of harmful content. This case exposed just how difficult that balance is. In the end, Murthy v. Missouri did not provide a dramatic constitutional ruling—but it reshaped how I view free speech. It taught me that free expression today is not just about what the government says or does; it is about how institutions, public and private, interact in subtle, often hidden ways. It reminded me that protecting speech means being vigilant not just about censorship, but also about the behind-the-scenes dynamics that influence what we see, hear, and believe online.

In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket that displayed the words "F*** the Draft" in the Los Angeles County Courthouse. He was protesting the Vietnam War and the draft. Cohen was charged under a California statute prohibiting "maliciously disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct." The California Court of Appeal upheld his conviction, but he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his arrest violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The state argued that Cohen's jacket constituted offensive conduct and that it had the authority to maintain order. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, overturned Cohen's conviction. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, held that the First Amendment protected Cohen's expression. The Court emphasized that the government could not criminalize speech simply because it was offensive. Justice Harlan famously wrote, "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," highlighting the subjective nature of determining offensive speech. The Cohen v. California decision reinforced that the First Amendment protects unpopular speech and that individuals have a broad right to express themselves freely. The Cohen v. California case profoundly shaped my understanding of the importance of protecting free speech, even when the content may be offensive or controversial. This case highlighted the complexity of balancing individual freedoms with societal order and emphasized the crucial role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights. It resonates with me because it underscores the importance of tolerance and open-mindedness in a democratic society. The phrase "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric" captures the essence of diverse perspectives and the subjective nature of offensive speech. It serves as a reminder that what may be distasteful or provocative to one person might be a powerful form of expression for another. This realization prompted me to reflect on the importance of defending individuals' rights to express their views, even if those views are unpopular or contentious. Moreover, the Cohen case highlighted the essential function of the First Amendment in fostering vibrant public discourse. It reinforced the notion that free speech is a cornerstone of democracy, enabling individuals to challenge authority, question societal norms, and advocate for change. By protecting even offensive speech, the Supreme Court affirmed that freedom of expression is a fundamental right that should not be curtailed lightly. Recently, President Trump's message to universities has raised concerns about free speech. He indicated that students participating in "illegal" demonstrations should face arrest or deportation, and universities allowing such protests might face funding cuts. This stance raises significant concerns about potential infringements on First Amendment rights, as it seeks to limit individuals' ability to express dissenting views and engage in peaceful protests. The juxtaposition of these two events highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and preserving individual freedoms. While the Cohen case reaffirmed the importance of protecting diverse forms of expression, Trump's recent actions suggest a move toward greater government control over speech and assembly. This shift has sparked widespread debate and controversy, with many arguing that it undermines the fundamental principles of free speech and academic freedom. Ultimately, the Cohen v. California case has had a lasting impact on my perspective. It has made me more aware of the delicate balance between maintaining public order and preserving individual rights, and it underscores the importance of defending free speech as a cornerstone of a free and just society. This case serves as a reminder that the fight for civil liberties is ongoing and that vigilance and advocacy are essential to ensuring that the principles of freedom and equality are upheld for all.

As a kid, I was often told that I'd "make a great lawyer". I always took this as a compliment, but as I've grown, I've learned it actually meant "Wow this little kid is argumentative and loud." Even though I understand now that this compliment was slightly backhanded, I'll take it. Law is an honorable profession. I spent many years as a child, as so many of us have, and while I was a child I developed a passion for politics. I would go to protests with my family during Moral Mondays, a protest movement led by Rev. William Barber here in Raleigh, NC. These protests were focused on injustices in our state like gerrymandering and voter suppression. As a child, I didn't fully understand what we were protesting, but as a I grew, so did my interest and understanding. The more I understood, the more opinionated I got, which only contributed to being called a "little lawyer." As I continued to be told I'd "make a good lawyer", and continued to learn more about politics, specifically criminal justice, I began seriously consider law as a career. The Constitution guarantees a right to a defense, among many other rights for the accused. While many who don't understand the legal system seem to resent this fact, anyone who thinks about this issue will realize how necessary it is. It is incredibly easy for a government (especially one that now has the power of modern technology) to oppress and subjugate its citizens through flimsy prosecutions and abusive police tactics, which we saw in the Jim Crow South, the USSR, China, and modern Russia, among other despotic states. Any democratic system that would like to survive needs a strong legal system, and that means that defendants must have a strong defense and an expert counsel who can lead them through the complexities of the law, or else anyone can be imprisoned. If criminals can be imprisoned without a fair trial, so can innocent people. Without a good public defender, many defendants from poor and marginalized communities would have no way of defending themselves from poorly thought-out prosecutions, extreme or unnecessary punishment, or even false imprisonment. This is why I aspire to be a public defender (despite my family's slight disappointment that I'll only be a lawyer, not a lawyer, and also very wealthy). Public defenders and criminal defense attorneys more broadly, who are widely maligned in media like Law and Order and other police procedurals as obstructing the justice that law enforcement so benevolently seeks, are actually vital to the preservation and defense of justice. I'd set my sights on a career as a lawyer long before the Dobbs decision a few years back, but as our extremist Supreme Court has made that decision and so many other extreme positions law, it's been made more and more clear. Legislators don't truly make the law anymore in this country, lawyers do. Judges, make laws, while congresspeople argue on cable TV. It's now more vital than ever that good lawyers who believe in real justice and freedom are present and stand up to fight for what's right. I hope that when I complete my education, I'm able to improve our world by ensuring that even poor people and minorities in Southeast Raleigh can get the same good defense in court as the wealthy of Oakwood could. I hope that, if the call ever came, I could use my skills to defend what's right and just in the world, and protect our most sacred rights.

The town of Aurora, North Carolina, holds a special place in my heart. Nestled amidst picturesque landscapes, it has been home to generations of families and hardworking individuals who have weathered both challenges and triumphs. However, the negligent mining practices of the phosphate company have left scars on this once-thriving community. Through my pursuit of a legal education, I am committed to being a beacon of change, empowering Aurora to rebuild, thrive, and attract investment for a brighter future. As I embark on my journey in law, my primary goal is to address the aftermath of these negligent mining practices. I envision a comprehensive legal strategy aimed at holding the phosphate company accountable for its actions. By engaging in environmental advocacy and litigation, I will seek justice for the people of Aurora who have endured the consequences of reckless industrial practices. Through legal channels, I will advocate for stricter regulations, compensation for damages, and the implementation of sustainable mining practices to prevent further harm. Beyond the courtroom, I am determined to be a catalyst for community empowerment and transformation. Collaborating with local residents, stakeholders, and experts, I will initiate educational campaigns to raise awareness about environmental rights and the potential economic benefits of responsible industrial practices. By fostering a sense of collective ownership, I aspire to empower the people of Aurora to actively participate in shaping the future of their town. Aurora's potential for revitalization lies not only in rectifying past wrongs but also in diversifying its economic landscape. Through strategic legal advocacy, I will attract the attention of potential investors who are committed to ethical and sustainable business practices. By negotiating partnerships and incentives for eco-friendly industries, I aim to transform Aurora into an attractive destination for responsible capital investment. This infusion of resources will create new job opportunities, stimulate local businesses, and drive economic growth. To ensure the success of this ambitious endeavor, I plan to collaborate closely with local government officials, environmental organizations, and economic development agencies. By leveraging my legal expertise and forging partnerships, I will create a united front dedicated to the revival of Aurora. Through town hall meetings, workshops, and community engagement initiatives, I will empower the residents to actively participate in the revitalization process and contribute their valuable insights. In conclusion, my education in law is not just a personal pursuit; it is a means to a greater end – the rejuvenation of Aurora, North Carolina. By holding accountable those responsible for the town's decline, raising awareness about environmental rights, and attracting responsible investment, I am committed to leading the charge towards a brighter future for Aurora. Together, we can rewrite the narrative of Aurora from a desolate town to a thriving hub of opportunity and hope.