Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (8)
- Compelled Speech (6)
- Constitution (5)
- Supreme Court (5)
- NIFLA (4)
-
- Free Speech (3)
- National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (3)
- Facebook (2)
- Free Speech Clause (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Big Data (1)
- Bill of Rights (1)
- Charidy (1)
- Charities (1)
- Compelled Disclosure (1)
- Compelled Physician Speech (1)
- Compelled Speech Doctrine (1)
- Complicity (1)
- Crowdfunding (1)
- Data Privacy (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Doctrinal Fluidity (1)
- Due Process (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Fraud (1)
- Free Speech Law (1)
- Free Speech Rights (1)
- GlobalGiving (1)
- GoFundMe (1)
- Google (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Regulating Charitable Crowdfunding, Lloyd H. Mayer
Regulating Charitable Crowdfunding, Lloyd H. Mayer
Indiana Law Journal
Charitable crowdfunding is a global and rapidly growing new method for raising money to benefit charities and individuals in need. While mass fundraising has existed for hundreds of years, crowdfunding is distinguishable from those earlier efforts because of its low cost, speed of implementation, and broad reach. Reflecting these advantages, it now accounts annually for billions of dollars raised from tens of millions of donors through hundreds of internet platforms, including Charidy, Facebook, GoFundMe, and GlobalGiving. Although most charitable crowdfunding campaigns raise only modest amounts, on occasion a campaign attracts tens of millions of dollars in donations. However, charitable crowdfunding …
Respeaking The Bill Of Rights: A New Doctrine Of Incorporation, Kurt Lash
Respeaking The Bill Of Rights: A New Doctrine Of Incorporation, Kurt Lash
Indiana Law Journal
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment raises a host of textual, historical, and doctrinal difficulties. This is true even if (especially if) we accept the Fourteenth Amendment as having made the original Bill of Rights binding against the states. Does this mean we have two Bills of Rights, one applicable against the federal government with a “1791” meaning and a second applicable against the state governments with an “1868” meaning? Do 1791 understandings carry forward into the 1868 amendment? Or do 1868 understandings of the Bill of Rights carry backward …
Big Data, Big Gap: Working Towards A Hipaa Framework That Covers Big Data, Ryan Mueller
Big Data, Big Gap: Working Towards A Hipaa Framework That Covers Big Data, Ryan Mueller
Indiana Law Journal
One lasting impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the privacy protections it provides for our sensitive health information. In the era of Big Data, however, much of our health information exists outside the traditional doctor-patient dynamic. From wearable technology, to mobile applications, to social media and internet browsing, Big Data organizations collect swaths of data that shed light on sensitive health information. Big Data organizations largely fall outside of HIPAA’s current framework because of the stringent requirements for when the HIPAA protections apply, namely that the data must be held by a covered entity, and …
Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden
Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden
Indiana Law Journal
The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …
Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen
Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen
Indiana Law Journal
Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …
Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk
Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk
Indiana Law Journal
Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …
The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin
The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin
Indiana Law Journal
Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.
The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …
Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han
Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han
Indiana Law Journal
Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …
Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki
Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki
Indiana Law Journal
Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.
State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …
Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post
Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post
Indiana Law Journal
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. There are good and convincing explanations for the Court’s decision in Barnette, but the Court’s recent expansion of the doctrine, culminating in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, holds that compelled speech is in most instances “content-based” regulation requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.
Using examples ranging from professional malpractice to compulsory tax returns, this Article argues that the doctrinal rule of NIFLA is demonstrably incorrect. It suggests that the doctrinal category of “compelled speech” may itself be confused insofar as it imagines that all legal obligations to communicate are equally …
Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue
Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue
Indiana Law Journal
This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Indiana Law Journal
Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …