After Irene, Vermonters proved themselves strong. But what should towns do when the floods keep coming? This presentation considers how disagreement can strengthen a town’s ability to handle the rising waters.

Since its inception, the Constitution has been criticized for not doing enough to protect basic freedoms. Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted. Abolitionists were divided on whether the highest law in the land could ever be redeemed. Neither a divine document nor a tool of elites, the Constitution might also be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of civic friendship.

The right to protest is one of our fundamental freedoms, but what about speech that leads to violence and social disorder? This Town Hall considers the expansions of rights under the First Amendment over the course of the 20th century. The question is, with greater protections for vociferous dissent, what do we need to still feel safe?

Since its inception, the Constitution has been criticized for not doing enough to protect basic freedoms. Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted. Abolitionists were divided on whether the highest law in the land could ever be redeemed. Neither a divine document nor a tool of elites, the Constitution might also be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of good clash.

This term the Supreme Court will decide whether bans on homeless encampments are a violation of the 8th Amendment. This presentation considers the arguments on both sides of the debate.

Deliberation is supposed to be the secret sauce of democracy. But what do we do when deliberation makes members of a group more extreme? This talk looks at how to increase the argument pool in our heads.

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean. This presentation considers the intellectual and spiritual energy required to grasp the need for freedom and social cohesion.

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court handed the abortion controversy back to the states. Are we ready? What do we need to do to live in a pluralist society?

Deliberation is the practice that holds our democracy together, but does it always lead to better decisions? We’ll consider how we can reduce polarization by generating new pathways in the brain.

The Supreme Court prohibits governments from prohibiting speech based on content. How might we use this fundamental freedom to enhance our political communities?

The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?

The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?

In this final session we’ll consider the pleasures of persuasion and the self-destructive habit of polarization.

Activists love zero-sum arguments, but is that all one can say? We’ll consider more nuanced arguments from across the political spectrum.

The Supreme Court ruled that states with school voucher programs must extend those benefits to religious institutions. What should Vermont do?

The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?

The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean. This presentation considers the intellectual and spiritual energy required to grasp the need for freedom and social cohesion.

Since its inception, the Constitution has either been regaled as a tool for liberty or a cloak for elite interests. This presentation considers both sides of the argument with a twist: What if the People really get to decide?

Since its inception, the Constitution has either been regaled as a tool for liberty or a cloak for elite interests. This presentation considers both sides of the argument with a twist: What if the People really get to decide?

The recent Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency put administrative agencies on notice. In order to take on major issues—such as regulating greenhouse gas emissions in an entire industry—agencies like the EPA need a clear statement from Congress. Constitutional scholar Meg Mott and Aaron Kisicki from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources consider the arguments on both sides of this decision, and discuss the implications of this Supreme Court ruling on legislation for climate change.

If Roe is overturned, regulations on abortion will go back to the states. How can citizens make the best choice about a very complicated question?

Since its inception the Declaration of Independence has provided the blue print for liberation movements. Today, not so much. This presentation considers how 21st century social movements might benefit from this American playbook.

Do states have the power to regulate social media?

Join me with Tom Ewing, publisher of the Keene Sentinel; freelance journalist Paul Cuno Booth, and two recent KSC graduates as we discuss the dilemma the press and citizens face when handling falsehoods and fallacies. In 1927 Justice Brandeis argued that even “noxious doctrines” deserved a chance to make their case. The remedy for "falsehood and fallacies” was “more speech, not enforced silence.” Are we still able to embrace his vision of the First Amendment today?

Cost is $15 per person and includes appetizers and one beverage (beer, wine, or non-alcoholic drink) in the relaxed atmosphere at Modestman Brewing in downtown Keene.

Join us for constitutional discussions in New Hampshire pubs. The first is in Manchester and focuses on the freedoms set forth in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan. Anna Brown of Citizens Count, Tim Kelly of The New Hampshire Union Leader, and Will Stewart, an elected official will discuss the benefits and burdens of the Supreme Court’s ruling.