Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
The First Amendment Right To Bare All: How Should Courts Apply The Secondary Effects Doctrine To Strip Bars And Other Sexually Oriented Businesses?, Andrew L. Arons
The First Amendment Right To Bare All: How Should Courts Apply The Secondary Effects Doctrine To Strip Bars And Other Sexually Oriented Businesses?, Andrew L. Arons
Andrew L Arons
The U.S. Supreme Court has developed a deferential First Amendment Doctrine that can be used to uphold laws that target speakers on the basis of the content of their speech. This so-called “secondary effects” doctrine relies on a fictional premise: state and local laws that target certain forms of speech are actually aimed at the adverse secondary effects of the speech. The doctrine supposedly applies to any form of speech that produces secondary effects. It also theoretically permits targeted speakers to challenge the constitutionality of such laws by disproving the existence of secondary effects. Nevertheless, lower courts have impliedly limited …
Leaving The Dale To Be More Fair: On Cls And First Amendment Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser
Leaving The Dale To Be More Fair: On Cls And First Amendment Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser
Mark Strasser
In Christian Legal Society of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, the Supreme Court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s requirement that all recognized student groups have an open membership policy. The decision has been criticized for a variety of reasons, e.g., that the Court conflated the First Amendment tests for speech and association. What has not been adequately explored is the degree to which the Court has modified limited purpose public forum analysis in the university context over the past few decades, resulting in a jurisprudence that is virtually unrecognizable in light of the more …
When Obscenity Discriminates, Elizabeth M. Glazer
When Obscenity Discriminates, Elizabeth M. Glazer
Elizabeth M Glazer
When public indecency statutes outlaw gender nonconformity, obscenity discriminates; when movie ratings censor representations of sexual minorities, obscenity discriminates, and discriminates on the basis of their status as sexual minorities. This Article addresses obscenity doctrine’s infliction of first generation, or status discrimination against sexual minorities by conflating “sex” – and the prurient representation of sex that constitutes obscenity – and “sexual orientation.” Civil rights lawyers and scholars have turned their attentions away from “first generation” discrimination,” where groups experience discrimination on the basis of their status, and toward “second generation” discrimination, where groups experience discrimination for failing to downplay or …
When Obscenity Discriminates, Elizabeth M. Glazer
When Obscenity Discriminates, Elizabeth M. Glazer
Elizabeth M Glazer
When public indecency statutes outlaw gender nonconformity, obscenity discriminates; when movie ratings censor representations of sexual minorities, obscenity discriminates, and discriminates on the basis of their status as sexual minorities. This Article addresses obscenity doctrine’s infliction of first generation, or status discrimination against sexual minorities by conflating “sex” – and the prurient representation of sex that constitutes obscenity – and “sexual orientation.” Civil rights lawyers and scholars have turned their attentions away from “first generation” discrimination,” where groups experience discrimination on the basis of their status, and toward “second generation” discrimination, where groups experience discrimination for failing to downplay or …