Although the courts have struggled to balance the interests of individuals, businesses, and law enforcement, the proliferation of intrusive new technologies puts many of our presumed freedoms in legal limbo. For instance, it's not hard to envision a day when websites such as Facebook or Google Maps introduce a feature that allows real-time tracking of anyone you want, based on face-recognition software and ubiquitous live video feeds.
Does this scenario sound like an unconstitutional invasion of privacy? These 24 eye-opening lectures immerse you in the Constitution, the courts, and the post-9/11 Internet era that the designers of our legal system could scarcely have imagined. Professor Rosen explains the most pressing legal issues of the modern day and asks how the framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights would have reacted to aspects of the modern life such as full-body scans, cell phone surveillance, and privacy in cloud servers.
Called "the nation's most widely read and influential legal commentator" by the Los Angeles Times, Professor Rosen is renowned for his ability to bring legal issues alive - to put real faces and human drama behind the technical issues that cloud many legal discussions. Here he asks how you would decide particular cases about liberty and privacy. You'll come away with a more informed opinion about whether modern life gives even the most innocent among us reason to worry.
PLEASE NOTE: When you purchase this title, the accompanying reference material will be available in your Library section along with the audio.
©2012 The Teaching Company, LLC (P)2012 The Great Courses
I found this quite interesting and useful. It isn't a replacement for a lawyer, but it might help you figure out when your rights are being violated as well as where certain laws come from, their backgrounds and intent, etc. Really good to know. Will definitely listen to a second time around, to pick up details.
A well-organized and structured lecture that takes a look at constitutional law and historical legal precedent, with particular emphasis on the 4th, 5th, and 1st amendments.
Professor Rosen keeps the lecture interesting and thought provoking, forcing the listener to consider their own views on the concepts described. He supports his assertions with multiple references to case law without coming across as pedantic. I would rate this as relatively "light reading" with moderate information density.
The narration was good but not excellent: obviously a polished speaker, but not rising the the quality of Audible's best professional narrators. The annoying and obviously added-in-post-production applause at break points between lectures was a poor creative choice.
If this is indicative of the other "great courses" audiobooks I look forward to listening to more.
I’m not an American. I’m a Canadian. But I lived in the US for a number of years and have American family that I am very fond of.
When I was younger I thought of the US as a grand experiment in democracy. Americans valued personal freedom and civil liberties like no other nation on Earth and the benefits of that kind of respect for individual citizen was paying dividends as the US grew in wealth and respect. American always seemed to me to be the exact opposite of Nazi Germany were any official could, at any time, demand to see, “Your papers, please!”
My thinking on this has taken an about-face. Hearing Prof. Rosen describe the melting away of judicial respect for individual liberty in the Land of Liberty was a very sobering. And worrisome.
Jeff Rosen's ability to provoke you into thinking the concepts he speaks on.
None that I have read, this is my first law based book
He wrote the book which gives him insight into the tones he is trying to address you in and he already understands all the concepts which makes it easier for him to read them to you.
Sort of. It invoked a feeling of gratefulness. Gratefulness based on the fact that we live in a country where such rights are given, and grateful someone like Jeff Rosen is around to teach us about them.
This provides a basic introduction into the Supreme Court's First and Fourth Amendment decisions in the 20th Century, but the analysis is not balanced. Rosen approaches the subject from an extreme civil libertarian point of view, and seems utterly unable to present the other side's arguments with any sympathy, even if those arguments persuaded a majority of the Supreme Court.
I am of two minds when it comes to this series.
On the one hand, Professor Rosen is undoubtedly an expert whose performance is both clean and crisp (so much so, that he almost certainly read his remarks in a studio to canned applause). His course organization is outstanding and the course flows to a thought-provoking conclusion.
What galls, though, is Professor Rosen's open liberal partisanship. That he is liberal should not surprise - after all, he is a legal affairs commentator at the New Republic. But his performance tilts so far left that the listener is left to wonder how stupid or evil Justices who disagree with him are. His sins are mostly of the omission type - he does not give a lot of air time discussing opposing viewpoints. But he also peppers his lectures with gushing praise for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Bryer, and especially, Louis Brandeis. The sole praise for a "conservative" that I can recall goes to Chief Justice Roberts, but in a segment preceding Rosen's discussion on the Obamacare decision and Roberts's crucial role in upholding the law.
The Great Courses series could not have gotten a more qualified man to speak on this topic than Rosen. That said, it's a shame that the series comes across as high-grade liberal talking points.
Considering rights and liberties that are very quickly falling into grey area within the law.
Some points ought to be taken lightly, for instance when Professor Rosen is talking about what rights an officer has to search and seize. I have cops that are friends, and there is a bit of scare tactic in some of the Professor's points, but overall, as a society there needs to be a very real and immediate discussion on where to take the law in the wake of ever dominating technology.
Faced with mindless duty, when an audio book player slips into a rear pocket and mini buds pop into ears, old is made new again.
Are Americans more or less free in the 21st Century? Professor Jeffrey Rosen in “Privacy, Property and Free Speech” leaves the question unanswered. However, he clearly frames the question for listeners to draw their own conclusion. It is difficult to give a definitive answer for three reasons. One, new technology redefines freedom. Two, September 11, 2001 redefines security. Three, globalization redefines nationalism.
Despite Brexit and nationalist sentiment of aspirants to the American Presidency, Congress, and Supreme Court–all human beings are citizens of the world. There is less and less room for nation-state nationalism. Encroachment on privacy, property, and free speech are inevitable in the 21st century (and beyond). In reality, freedom’s encroachment is an inherent part of civilization. When the first man and woman joined together as a couple; when the first tribe became a hunting and gathering troop, and when the first hunter-gatherers became part of a farming community, freedom diminished.
The last lecture in Rosen’s series is about the right to be forgotten. Now, we are citizens of nation-states; tomorrow we will be citizens of the world. With each regrouping, there is a diminishment of freedom. The last bastion of freedom will be “the right to be forgotten”. It will be a programming code designed to volitionally erase one’s identity. This volitional reboot will offer temporal freedom but the nature of public engagement will once again encroach on that freedom.
Presents broad and interesting topics noted in title. Unfortunately does so only from his biased perspective... when citing something he disagrees with he punctuates with an incredulous: "What do you think?!!!!!" or "only a prejudice person could argue"...after he has stacked the deck by his inflections and asides about legal decisions. That aspect was very disappointing. I would like to have the same topics addressed by the other side.
Great Courses= yes. Jeffrey Rosen = no.
He was expressive... biased but expressive. But he speaks slowly so I ran it at a higher speed.
Frustration that this important topic gets treated with such bias.
Report Inappropriate Content