Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

Duke Law

2005

Freedom of speech

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Content And Context: The Contributions Of William Van Alstyne To First Amendment Interpretation, Rodney A. Smolla Apr 2005

Content And Context: The Contributions Of William Van Alstyne To First Amendment Interpretation, Rodney A. Smolla

Duke Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Conduit-Based Regulation Of Speech, Jim Chen Apr 2005

Conduit-Based Regulation Of Speech, Jim Chen

Duke Law Journal

Architecture is destiny. As much as information today determines the contemporary wealth of nations, the physical world retains its relevance. Architecture affects crime rates, arguably even collegiality among professors. The interplay between the physical and the ethereal likewise shapes the constitutional doctrine that facilitates the free flow of ideas. The structure of a communicative medium dictates its performance. Awareness of the structure of information markets improves the calibration of intellectual property and refines legal responses to potential electronic bottlenecks. This Article takes the next logical step: revealing the deep doctrinal structure of legal efforts to influence the design and maintenance …


Colored Speech: Cross Burnings, Epistemics, And The Triumph Of The Crits?, Guy-Uriel Charles Jan 2005

Colored Speech: Cross Burnings, Epistemics, And The Triumph Of The Crits?, Guy-Uriel Charles

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines the Court's recent decision in Virginia v. Black. It argues that Black signifies a different approach to the constitutionality of statutes regulating cross burnings. It shows how the Court's conservatives have essentially accepted the intellectual framework and the mode of analysis suggested previously by the critical race theorists. In particular, this Essay explores the role that Justice Thomas plays in the case. The Essay explains Justice Thomas's active participation as a matter of epistemic authority and epistemic deference.