In April 2026, I traveled to Panama City to attend the Florida State University First Amendment Debate featuring professor Denise Harle and attorney Michel Stone. The experience was intellectually intriguing and encouraging from several perspectives.
My primary encouragement came in the form of attendance. The Florida State University campus at Panama City cannot be described as large. It is led by Dean Randy Hanna, and his commitment to legal studies is patent.
An assortment of local attorneys, faculty, and others attended. But I was more struck by the various Pre-Law Club attendees. They were not only present but had obviously devoted time and effort to planning and executing this event. I was also struck by the approximately 50 high school students in attendance.
I struggle to believe that a high school student is more prepared for the Constitution today than I was so many years ago. Nonetheless, they were present, respectful, and at least receptive. Among their number, undoubtedly, there are a few who will eventually pursue law as a career. Feeding the curiosity and interest of the next generation is our obligation.
Following a cordial introductory lunch, we transitioned to a large lecture hall for the debate. During the lunch introductions, I was encouraged by the variety of Pre-Law students, and the engagement of Florida State leadership. The school was obviously engaged with these young people on a personal level, and the familiarity was evidence of their past collaborations.
Professor Harle has recently been involved in founding the Florida First Amendment Clinic. This brings clinical experiences for students to engage in actual advocacy and litigation while in law school. Her brief overview was inspiring. Her enthusiasm and academic perspective on the First Amendment were both encouraging and refreshing.
Nonetheless, there was some pre-debate debate on the topic. What students and guests saw was the reality that there can be disagreement and yet discourse. There was a sharing of perspectives and differences, disagreement without disagreeableness. That is healthy, and the cordial engagement was refreshing.
So often in the world today, individuals cite the First Amendment as protecting their right to both speak their mind and suppress the views of others. Nothing could be more anathema. The First provides protection for most but not all speech. There is no “freedom to cancel” clause. Nonetheless, there are even those who are opposed to the protections of the First Amendment.
I was particularly struck by the courage of one student who jumped into the pre-debate, noting something to the effect of people not needing to be so rapidly triggered or offended. He was many years younger than those who started that particular point, entered the fray professionally and courteously, and demonstrated class and intellect.
Michel Stone is a local Panama City attorney. He is involved in representing a variety of clients but harkens back to early constitutional experience in criminal defense around Panama City. He has been significantly involved in the defense of murder and other serious felonies. His depth of experience was patent.
Chiles v. Salazar was the obvious focus of the main debate. Nonetheless, the conversation strayed periodically into more fundamental discussions of constitutional law. Mr. Stone's initial statement was to the effect of “we have been lured here under false pretenses,“ suggesting that Salazar is not a First Amendment decision in any instance, but a "police powers" discussion.
Salazar is a recent 8-to-1 decision of the United States Supreme Court. Someone would argue that numeric is as close to unanimous as the present Court is likely to come. The case focuses on a Colorado statute precluding licensed counselors from providing “conversion therapy“ to minors.
Professor Harle’s perspective was focused more precisely on the First Amendment issue, specifically the freedom of expression.
Mr. Stone made multiple arguments in favor of a ban on “conversion therapy.” His focus was less upon the First Amendment and more upon the detriment he perceives of “conversion therapy." In this, he argues that there is persistent, if not consistent, governmental authority under the auspices of “police power" to protect the public from legislatively perceived harm. He quoted a volume of statistics that he believes demonstrates the potential or probability for damage from "conversion therapy."
In a somewhat unscientific manner, his comments perhaps suggested that correlation is the equivalent of causation. See Disparity and Evolution (August 2024). One of his primary examples was the prevalence of suicidal ideation or attempt in those who have attempted conversion therapy compared with those who have not. This blurred distinction between correlation and causation was questioned by several attendees.
Unfortunately, the time for this discussion was too short. As I age, that seems to be increasingly true. I wanted to hear more. Where did the speakers not venture? A fundamental that I stress to my students is that there are a variety of rights with which we are endowed by our creator. Our Constitution and American jurisprudence recognize many of these, and as yet omit others.
Unfortunately, they are not inherently congruous. Your rights to enjoy your property may, in fact, interfere with my rights to substantive liberty. Similarly, your rights to freedom of expression or association may, in fact, impede upon my rights similarly. See
Fundamental Rights (April 2019).
There is no absolutly clear outcome in so many of these conflicts between and among individual rights and societal powers. There are balances and compromises.
Thus, we periodically see divergent voices on some boulevards throughout the country, separated by the thin blue line that somehow keeps our discourse (usually) civil. There is strong disagreement at times. There is the right to speak, and yet the government has the power to keep both (all) sides in such a discourse safe from each other, and from the public generally (some views are not so popular).
I was particularly grateful for the leadership of the Florida State university pre-law club. Their advisor, Professor Lucy Hoover has obviously devoted much time to the development and growth. Dean Randy Hannah has an obvious interest in the club and delivers support, engagement, and encouragement. Associate Dean Irvin Clark has likewise been engaged since the club began. Their involvement and familiarity with the students are patent as they enter a room of students who all readily greet them as you would old friends.
All of that said, the success of this future lawyer launch platform is so demonstrably due to the efforts of Judge John Mooneyham. He has been the students' community resource, their reference, and their advisor since the club began about four years ago. I am proud of all of these Boomers who are striving to deliver something to the next generation.
And the next generation is pretty impressive. The following club members/officers provided overview of the Salazar opinion, introduction of speakers, and more. They shined and delivered both intellect and community engagement.
Lindsey Dey
Alex Kinchen
Tyler Zheng
Jennifer Giraldo
Cathy Buller
Nicholas Cooley
Florian Riemer
I spend a fair amount of space here advocating for mentorship, support for the next generation, and efforts directed at their success. See Starfish (February 2022). We may not pull all of these club members into the legal profession. But if we manage to help one or two on their professional quests, then it is worth all the effort.
Kudos to Florida State University Panama City, the individuals who made the great debate possible, and all the interested and engaged who took the time to both attend and engage the challenge of peacefully and intellectually discussing differing viewpoints.
