Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Marriage Mandates: Compelled Disclosures Of Race, Sex, And Gender Data In Marriage Licensing Schemes, Mikaela A. Phillips
Marriage Mandates: Compelled Disclosures Of Race, Sex, And Gender Data In Marriage Licensing Schemes, Mikaela A. Phillips
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
This Note argues that mandatory disclosures of personal information—specifically race, sex, and gender—on a marriage license application constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment and should be subject to heightened scrutiny. Disclosing one’s race, sex, or gender on a marriage license application is an affirmative act, and individuals may wish to have their identity remain anonymous. These mandatory disclosures send a message that this information is still relevant to marriage regulation. Neither race nor gender is based in science; rather they are historical and social constructs created to uphold a system of white supremacy and heteronormativity. Thus, such statements are …
Deepfakes: A New Content Category For A Digital Age, Anna Pesetski
Deepfakes: A New Content Category For A Digital Age, Anna Pesetski
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, greatly benefitting society. One such benefit is people’s ability to have quick and easy access to information through news and social media. A recent concern, however, is that manipulated media, otherwise known as “deepfakes,” are being released and passed off as truth. These videos are crafted with technology that allows the creator to carefully change details of the video’s subject to make him appear to do or say things that he never did. Deepfakes are often depictions of political candidates or leaders and have the potential to influence voter choice, thereby altering the …
The Pure-Hearted Abrams Case, Andres Yoder
The Pure-Hearted Abrams Case, Andres Yoder
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
One hundred years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his mind about the right to free speech and wound up splitting the history of free speech law into two. In his dissent in Abrams v. United States, he called for the end of the old order—in which courts often ignored or rejected free speech claims—and set the stage for the current order—in which the right to free speech is of central constitutional importance. However, a century on, scholars have been unable to identify a specific reason for Holmes’s Abrams transformation, and have instead pointed to more diffuse influences. By …