Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Sign Regulation After Reed: Suggestions For Coping With Legal Uncertainty, Alan C. Weinstein
Sign Regulation After Reed: Suggestions For Coping With Legal Uncertainty, Alan C. Weinstein
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article discusses Reed v. Town of Gilbert, in which the Court resolved a Circuit split over what constitutes content based sign regulations. We note that Justice Thomas's majority opinion applies a mechanical "need to read" approach to this question, and then explore the doctrinal and practical concerns raised by this approach. Doctrinally, we explore the tensions between Thomas's "need to read" approach and the Court's current approach of treating some regulation of speech as content-neutral despite the fact that a message must be read to determine its regulatory treatment. A prime example being the Court's "secondary effects" doctrine. …
The Ambush Interview: A False Light Invasion Of Privacy, Kevin F. O'Neill
The Ambush Interview: A False Light Invasion Of Privacy, Kevin F. O'Neill
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
The ''ambush" interview is a controversial investigative reporting technique permeating both national and local television news programming. In the typical ambush interview, a reporter and his news crew intercept an unsuspecting newsworthy subject on the street and bombard him with incriminating accusations ostensibly framed as questions. The ambush interviewee inevitably appears guilty before the viewing audience. This is due to a variety of forces, including the subject's severe credibility disadvantage and the accusatory nature of the reporter's questions. This Note applies a false light invasion of privacy analysis to the ambush technique and examines the nexus between the technique and …
Fighting Words As Free Speech, Stephen W. Gard
Fighting Words As Free Speech, Stephen W. Gard
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
It is now settled that "above all else, the first amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content." Despite the universal acceptance of this general principle, the United States Supreme Court has created several exceptions. In appropriate cases libel, obscenity, commercial speech, and offensive language may be censored without contravention of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of expression. The source of each of these exceptions to the general principle of governmental neutrality regarding the content of expression is Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
The Absoluteness Of The First Amendment, Stephen W. Gard
The Absoluteness Of The First Amendment, Stephen W. Gard
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
Despite an urgent need, the reality is that today we have no unifying free speech theory. Instead, the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court suggest that doctrinal confusion reigns. Ironically, I would suggest that the cause of the present doctrinal confusion is not that insufficient attention has been paid to technical free speech issues, but rather that modern first amendment thinking has been dominated by "balancers." The poverty of the balancing approach, be it ad hoc or definitional in character, stems from its reliance on pragmatic considerations rather than on fundamental principles embodied in the enduring legacy of …