Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno
James E. Moliterno
“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”
Is It Unconstitutional To Prohibit Faith-Based Schools From Becoming Charter Schools?, Stephen D. Sugarman
Is It Unconstitutional To Prohibit Faith-Based Schools From Becoming Charter Schools?, Stephen D. Sugarman
Stephen D Sugarman
This article argues that it is unconstitutional for state charter school programs to preclude faith-based schools from obtaining charters. First, the “school choice” movement of the past 50 years is described, situating charter schools in that movement. The current state of play of school choice is documented and the roles of charter schools, private schools (primarily faith-based schools), and public school choice options are elaborated. In this setting I argue a) based on the current state of the law it would not be unconstitutional (under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause) for states to elect to make faith-based schools eligible for …
Taking Libel Reform Seriously, Rodney A. Smolla
Second Thoughts About The First Amendment, Randy J. Kozel
Second Thoughts About The First Amendment, Randy J. Kozel
Randy J Kozel
The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider — and depart from — its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has marginalized its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has rejected its past decisions on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. And it has revised its earlier positions on union financing, abortion protesting, and commercial speech. Under the conventional view of constitutional adjudication, dubious precedents enjoy a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article …
Symbolic Counter-Speech, Howard M. Wasserman