Cato Event Podcast

As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, many of us think about the heroic figures who formed the foundation of our democracy. The Prohuman Foundation and Sphere Education Initiatives are excited to support you in thinking about these brave Americans by highlighting five unsung heroines who greatly influenced America’s Founding: Elizabeth Freeman, Anna Smith Strong, Nanyehi (Nancy Ward), Deborah Sampson, and Esther de Berdt Reed. During this webinar, we will dive deep into five lessons that encourage students to discover character strengths such as curiosity, courage, humanity, grit, and compassion while developing key skills in literacy and civil discourse. You will hear from the Prohuman Foundation and Sphere about the various ways to engage with these women’s stories in helping your students learn to recognize their own capacities for developing character strengths in their own lives.The webinar will consist of two parts. The first part will include a conversation between the Prohuman Foundation and Sphere to set the stage for understanding the unique opportunities presented by this collaborative effort. The second part will include deeper dives into the lessons themselves and the practical, tangible tools that can be applied in secondary classrooms. Educators will be empowered to use these resources to help their students develop a growth mindset, cultivate positive connections, engage in civil discourse, and respect viewpoint diversity.

Thirty years ago, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 230 became law. The law was the result of a bipartisan effort that saw the potential of the internet and sought to encourage innovation and opportunities for online speech. Thirty years later, the law remains crucial to users and innovators of all sizes; however, it has been criticized by both the left and the right.Join us for a day featuring panels on the history of Section 230, the current impact, debates, and legal challenges around the law, and how it might interact with future content moderation strategies including decentralization and technologies such as artificial intelligence. The event will also feature a live virtual conversation with one of Section 230’s co-authors, Senator Ron Wyden (D‑OR).

Thirty years ago, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 230 became law. The law was the result of a bipartisan effort that saw the potential of the internet and sought to encourage innovation and opportunities for online speech. Thirty years later, the law remains crucial to users and innovators of all sizes; however, it has been criticized by both the left and the right.Join us for a day featuring panels on the history of Section 230, the current impact, debates, and legal challenges around the law, and how it might interact with future content moderation strategies including decentralization and technologies such as artificial intelligence. The event will also feature a live virtual conversation with one of Section 230’s co-authors, Senator Ron Wyden (D‑OR).

Thirty years ago, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 230 became law. The law was the result of a bipartisan effort that saw the potential of the internet and sought to encourage innovation and opportunities for online speech. Thirty years later, the law remains crucial to users and innovators of all sizes; however, it has been criticized by both the left and the right.Join us for a day featuring panels on the history of Section 230, the current impact, debates, and legal challenges around the law, and how it might interact with future content moderation strategies including decentralization and technologies such as artificial intelligence. The event will also feature a live virtual conversation with one of Section 230’s co-authors, Senator Ron Wyden (D‑OR).

Thirty years ago, as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Section 230 became law. The law was the result of a bipartisan effort that saw the potential of the internet and sought to encourage innovation and opportunities for online speech. Thirty years later, the law remains crucial to users and innovators of all sizes; however, it has been criticized by both the left and the right.Join us for a day featuring panels on the history of Section 230, the current impact, debates, and legal challenges around the law, and how it might interact with future content moderation strategies including decentralization and technologies such as artificial intelligence. The event will also feature a live virtual conversation with one of Section 230’s co-authors, Senator Ron Wyden (D‑OR).

The debate about US policy toward China hinges on rarely stated judgments about the nature of the challenge. Is China mainly a revisionist or a status quo state? Should the United States keep all its international commitments amid China’s rise? What military posture can best defend those commitments? In his latest book, Retrench, Defend, Compete, Charles Glaser assesses these first-order questions and promotes an alternative US strategy toward China that would retrench from some US commitments in Asia and bolster others. Please join us as Glaser and Patricia Kim discuss the book and grapple with the range of US choices, from grand strategic judgments to specific foreign and military policies.

The Qur’an famously declares, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Yet, various forms of religious compulsion persist today in parts of the Muslim world, including death penalties for apostates and blasphemers, legal inequalities that disadvantage women and non-Muslims, and “morality police” who enforce strict norms on society.In this new book from the Cato Institute, Mustafa Akyol has assembled a team of Islamic scholars and intellectuals to articulate arguments against oppressive interpretations of Islam. Drawing on scriptural insights and contemporary realities, they contend that the Qur’anic principle of “no compulsion in religion” should be embraced fully, without exceptions.At this forum, Akyol will summarize key arguments from the book. Mirwais Balkhi will offer his commentary on the book’s significance for Afghanistan and the broader Muslim world.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we recall the key principles that form America’s foundation. Of these, the “certain unalienable rights” the Founders declared are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Yet, the Founders saw “liberty” not as the freedom to do whatever one wants—but rather the freedom to act and live in ways that promote virtue. How does this understanding of liberty apply to our classrooms? How does civil discourse and viewpoint diversity create space for students to be free to act in ways that promote virtue? In this webinar, we’ll explore how the Founding concept of liberty, combined with principles of civil discourse, can guide discussions of challenging topics. Topics that will be covered include the problem of self‐​censorship and the challenges of teaching content that some might find controversial, such as Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. We’ll examine ways that educators can create spaces for students to courageously discuss the challenging ideas they encounter in a variety of texts (both historical and literary) while embodying the true spirit of liberty that the Founders envisioned. This webinar will consist of three parts. The first part will be a 30‐​minute discussion between Kobi Nelson and three exemplary Sphere alumni: Nancy Wickham, Shannon Edwards, and Megan Thompson. The second part will include a Q&A with participants, and the third part will dive into resources that teachers can use to facilitate healthy conversation habits that honor the principles of liberty, civil discourse, and viewpoint diversity. All who attend will leave with practical, tangible tools that can be applied in classrooms, and educators will be empowered to create democratic spaces that honor free speech in their classrooms and schools.

For centuries, the greatest protection against unjust convictions and punishments was the institution of jury independence, including so-called “jury nullification.” The prosecutions of John Moore and Tanner Mansell illustrate a scenario in which jurors—apprised of their historic injustice-preventing powers—would have rendered a not guilty verdict. But because John and Tanner’s jurors, who appeared desperate for a way to acquit, weren’t informed of their historic prerogative to acquit against the evidence to prevent injustice, they had no option but to convict.When the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice learned of John’s and Tanner’s plights, we took their case to the highest levels of government—ultimately resulting in presidential pardons for each of them. Please join us as we hear first-hand accounts, discuss what went wrong, explore how Cato got involved, and consider solutions to the pathology of unjust prosecutions and convictions.