Digital Commons Network^™

Davis V. Fec: The First Amendment Rights Of A Wealthy Candidate, Jeremy Earl

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Explaining Change And Rethinking Dirty Words: Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Tobias Coleman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Identifying Government Speech & Classifying Speech Forums, Aaron Harmon

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court must decide whether a privately-donated Ten Commandments monument currently on display in a city park is the private speech of the donor or the government speech of Pleasant Grove City. Summum, a religious organization, sued Pleasant Grove City in federal court claiming that because the city had displayed in a city park a donated Ten Commandments monument, the First Amendment compelled the city to also accept and display Summum's proposed "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument. If the Court decides it is the private speech of the donor, it will have to …

The Emerging First Amendment Law Of Managerial Prerogative, Lawrence Rosenthal

Lawrence Rosenthal

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, held that allegations of police perjury made in memoranda to his superiors by Richard Ceballos, a supervisory prosecutor in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, were unprotected by the First Amendment because “his expressions were made pursuant to his duties. . . .” The academic reaction to this holding has been harshly negative; scholars argue that the holding will prevent the public from learning of governmental misconduct that is known only to those working within the bowels of the government itself.

This article rejects the scholarly consensus …

Enacting A Reasonable Federal Shield Law: A Reply To Professors Clymer And Eliason, James Thomas Tucker, Wermiel

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Problems With The Reporter's Privilege, Eliason D. Eliason

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Performing Art: National Endowment For The Arts V. Finley, Randall P. Bezanson

Federal Communications Law Journal

In this modified version of a chapter in his forthcoming book, ART AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2008-09), Professor Bezanson begins to probe the nature of art and its relation to the first amendment free speech guarantee. The essay uses the Finley v. NEA case, and specifically its discussion of Finley's performance art, to critique the Supreme Court's very approach to the Finley case, and to view the issues from the perspective of art, artistic freedom, and the Supreme Court's role in fashioning constitutional protection for art as art, and not simply as cognitive speech.

The Terrorist Is A Star!: Regulating Media Coverage Of Publicity-Seeking Crimes, Michelle Ward Ghetti

Federal Communications Law Journal

Publicity-seeking crimes, including terrorism, almost by definition depend on the media for their effectiveness. Twenty-five years ago, when the bulk of this article was written, critics both within and outside the news industry had begun to voice an awareness, if not a concern, for the ease with which such criminals obtained publicity on both a national and international platform and it looked as if something might be done within the media establishments to thwart this manipulation of the press. Today, it is possible to look back and see that, in fact, nothing has been done and, so, individuals such as …

Antitrust Language Barriers: First Amendment Constraints On Defining An Antitrust Market By A Broadcast's Language, And Its Implications For Audiences, Competition, And Democracy, Catherine J.K. Sandoval

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article explores whether the language of a broadcaster's program appropriately defines an antitrust market, consistent with First Amendment and antitrust principles. In its evaluation of the 2008 private equity buyout of Clear Channel Communications, the Department of Justice ("DOJ") defined the antitrust market by the language of the broadcast, as it had done for the 2003 merger of Univision and Hispanic Broadcasting Corporation. This Article uses social science research on Spanish and English-language radio and television to evaluate that decision. It argues that the distinct content and messages that characterize Spanish and English-language programming show that market definition is …

Deep Background: Journalists, Sources, And The Perils Of Leaking, William E. Lee

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Confronting The Limits Of The First Amendment: A Proactive Approach For Media Defendants Facing Liability Abroad, Michelle A. Wyant

San Diego International Law Journal

This Article confronts the limits this issue imposes on the First Amendment in four parts. Part I described the potential for conflicting defamation laws and forum shopping to undermine the American media's speech protections in the context of the Internet and global publications and outlines the Article's overall method of analysis. Part II first orients these conflicting defamation laws with respect to their development from the common law. It then frames them in terms of the underlying structural and policy differences that have produced their substantive divergence. This frame provides the analytical perspective through which this Article examines the varying …

Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger And The Law, Ira Robbins

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The middle finger is one of the most commonly used insulting gestures in the United States. The finger, which is used to convey a wide range of emotions, is visible on streets and highways, in schools, shopping malls, and sporting events, in courts and execution chambers, in advertisements and on magazine covers, and even on the hallowed floor of the United States Senate. Despite its ubiquity, however, as a number of recent cases demonstrate, those who use the middle finger in public run the risk of being stopped, arrested, prosecuted, fined, and even incarcerated under disorderly conduct or breach of …

Constitutional Law—First Amendment & Freedom Of Speech—Students May Be Regarded As Closed-Circuit Recipients Of The State's Anti Drug Message: The Supreme Court Creates A New Exception To The Tinker Student Speech Standard. Morse V. Frederick, 127 S. Ct. 2618 (2007), Megan D. Hargraves

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

This note argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Morse significantly weakens students' free speech rights. Although the Court stated that students "do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates," its decisions, in effect, weakens Tinker's important holding that students are entitled to First Amendment protection. The note asserts that the Court's opinion broadens schools' authority to regulate student speech in ways that are contrary to fundamental First Amendment values and explicitly allows schools to engage in highly suspect viewpoint discrimination.

The note first examines some of the fundamental First Amendment values at stake in student speech …

Digitus Impudicus: The Middle Finger And The Law, Ira P. Robbins

Ira P. Robbins

Hate Speech, C. Edwin Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper describes the rationale that a full protection theory of free speech, a theory based on respect for individual autonomy, would give for protecting hate speech. The paper then notes that such a rationale will be unpersuasive to many (including this author) if the harms associated with a failure to outlaw hate speech are as great as often suggested – most dramatically, if the failure to prohibit makes a substantial contribution to the occurrence of serious racial/ethnic violence or genocide. The article then attempts to outline what empirical evidence would be needed to support this conclusion and gives reasons …

Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner

Federal Communications Law Journal

In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable programmers and operators, Congress revised the must-carry rules in the 1992 Cable Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that the congressional must-carry law was facially constitutional. However, does the Turner II decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry law? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges.

Speaking Against Norms: Public Discourse And The Economy Of Racialization In The Workplace, Terry Smith

American University Law Review

Free speech controversies erupt from reactions to outlier voices, and these voices are often those of subordinated citizens such as racial minorities. Employing the tools of narrative, interviews with litigants and subjects, and interdisciplinary analysis of case law, Professor Terry Smith probes whether the social inequality of government employees of color affects the rigor of the First Amendment protection afforded their speech. Professor Smith argues that all public sector employees lack sufficient protection because their speech typically does not receive the highest constitutional scrutiny and because of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which stripped public sector …

Arbitrary And F^@#$*! Capricious: An Analysis Of The Second Circuit's Rejection Of The Fcc's Fleeting Expletive Regulation In Fox Television Stations, Inc. V. Fcc (2007), Justin Winquist

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizen Teacher: Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't, Susan P. Stuart

Law Faculty Publications

The recent Supreme Court case of Garcetti v. Ceballos is becoming one of the most-used cases in its mere two-year history. It denies to public employees the protection of the First Amendment when speaking in their official duties. In reviewing the cases both leading up to and then relying oh Garcetti, one is struck by the inherent conflict that nowpermeates some school board-employee relationships. Whereas preceding cases attempted to reach a balance between the school board and its employees' speech rights, bad management practices now seem to trump the First Amendment. Such practices have school boards discharging teachers and …

Where's The Harm?: Free Speech And The Regulation Of Lies, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to accord a measure of protection to outright lies. This essay seeks to explain why. Using Holocaust denial as an example of verifiably false speech, this essay poses the question of whether such speech poses a more serious danger than First Amendment jurisprudence traditionally has acknowledged. This essay also probes the unintended consequences of governmental attempts to impose criminal punishment on lies.

The Upbringing Of A Creature: The Scope Of A Parent's Right To Teach Children To Hate, Brooke Emery

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act And Protection Of Native American Religious Practices, Jason Gubi

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

Commercial Speech, First Amendment Intuitionism And The Twilight Zone Of Viewpoint Discrimination, Martin H. Redish

Faculty Working Papers

In this article, I seek to demonstrate that arguments made by scholars against First Amendment protection for commercial speech may be divided into three categories: (1) rationalist, (2) intuitionist, and (3) ideological. I argue that all three forms of opposition to commercial speech protection suffer, either directly or indirectly, from the same fundamental flaw: each constitutes or at the very least facilitates creation of a constitutionally destructive form of viewpoint discrimination. I show that all of the specific rationales for opposing First Amendment protection for commercial speech are fatally and illogically underinclusive: In each case the justification asserted to support …

Resolved, Or Is It? The First Amendment And Giving Money To Terrorists, Jeff Breinholt

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government Workers And Government Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

This essay, to be published in the First Amendment Law Review's forthcoming symposium issue on Public Citizens, Public Servants: Free Speech in the Post-Garcetti Workplace, critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos as reflecting a distorted understanding of government speech that overstates government's own expressive interests while undermining the public's interest in transparent government.

In Garcetti, the Court held that the First Amendment does not protect public employees' speech made "pursuant to their official duties," concluding that a government employer should remain free to exercise "employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." …

Constitution Day, 2008, Robert Berry

Librarian Publications

Robert Berry, the research librarian for the social sciences at the Sacred Heart University Library, has written an essay about the United States Constitution and the freedom of speech and expression. The essay was written for the occasion of Constitution Day 2008 at Sacred Heart University.

Misuse And Abuse Of Morse V. Frederick By Lower Courts: Sretching The High Court's Ruling Too Far To Censor Student Expression, Clay Calvert

Seattle University Law Review

This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment protects confidential attorney-client communications from unreasonable government intrusion, including unreasonable court orders compelling production of attorney-client communications. The Article begins by focusing on the elements of a claim under the Fourth Amendment. Part II identifies the elements and subsequent sections address each element in the context of attorney-client communications. Part III considers the legitimate expectation of privacy in confidential attorney-client communications. Part IV addresses the search and seizure requirement, explores authority distinguishing between "actual" and "constructive" searches, and concludes that, in addition to searches, court-ordered production of attorney-client communications (a "constructive" search and …

Who Owns 'Hillary.Com'? Political Speech And The First Amendment In Cyberspace, Jacqueline D. Lipton

Articles

In the lead-up to the next presidential election, it will be important for candidates both to maintain an online presence and to exercise control over bad faith uses of domain names and web content related to their campaigns. What are the legal implications for the domain name system? Although, for example, Senator Hillary Clinton now owns "hillaryclinton.com", the more generic "hillary.com" is registered to a software firm, Hillary Software, Inc. What about "hillary2008.com"? It is registered to someone outside the Clinton campaign and is not currently in active use. This article examines the large gaps and inconsistencies in current domain …

A Cross To Bear: The Need To Weigh Context In Determining The Constitutionality Of Religious Symbols On Public Land, Catherine Ansello

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Free Speech In The War On Terror: Does The Military Commissions Act Violate The First Amendment?, Ryan J. Vogel

Human Rights Brief

No abstract provided.