Law Commons^™

Disinformation And The Defamation Renaissance: A Misleading Promise Of “Truth”, Lili Levi

University of Richmond Law Review

Today, defamation litigation is experiencing a renaissance, with progressives and conservatives, public officials and celebrities, corporations and high school students all heading to the courthouse to use libel lawsuits as a social and political fix. Many of these suits reflect a powerful new rhetoric—reframing the goal of defamation law as fighting disinformation. Appeals to the need to combat falsity in public discourse have fueled efforts to reverse the Supreme Court’s press–protective constitutional limits on defamation law under the New York Times v. Sullivan framework. The anti–disinformation frame could tip the scales and generate a majority on the Court to dismantle …

Rural Bashing, Kaceylee Klein, Lisa R. Pruitt

University of Richmond Law Review

Anti-rural sentiment is expressed in the United States in three major threads. The first is a narrative about the political structure of our representative democracy—an assertion that rural people are over-represented thanks to the structural features of the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College. Because rural residents are less than a fifth of the U.S. population, complaints about this situation are often framed as “minority rule.”

The second thread is related to the first: rural people and their communities get more than their fair share from federal government coffers. The argument, often expressed in terms of “subsidies,” is that rural …

Solving Slapp Slop, Nicole J. Ligon

University of Richmond Law Review

In a substantial minority of states, wealthy and powerful individuals can, without much consequence, bring defamation lawsuits against the press and concerned citizens to silence and intimidate them. These lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (“SLAPP”s), are brought not to compensate a wrongfully injured person, but rather to discourage the defendants from exercising their First Amendment rights. In other words, when well resourced individuals feel disrespected by public criticism, they sometimes sue the media or concerned citizens, forcing these speakers to defend themselves in exorbitantly expensive defamation actions. In states without anti-SLAPP statutes—statutes aimed at protecting speakers from …

Replacing Tinker, Noah C. Chauvin

University of Richmond Law Review

In this Article, I wish to question whether reaffirming the animating spirit of Tinker is the best way to protect student speech rights. In allowing schools to punish student speech that school officials reasonably believe could be substantially disruptive, Tinker founds students’ free expression rights on unstable ground. This is true for two reasons. First, the Tinker standard allows school officials to regulate student speech based on their own perceptions of what its impacts will be. While these perceptions must be reasonable, courts have shown extraordinary deference to educators’ claims that student speech could be substantially disruptive. Second, the substantial …

Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley

University of Richmond Law Review

In its 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious exemptions from general laws that incidentally burdened religious practice. Sherbert, in theory, provided stringent protections for religious freedom. But those protections came at a price. Religious adherents could secure exemptions even if they had no evidence the laws they challenged unfairly targeted their religious conduct. And they could thereby undermine the policy objectives those laws sought to achieve. Because of such policy concerns, the Court progressively restricted the availability of religious exemptions. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith …

Curating Campus Speakers, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

University of Richmond Law Review

Curation—the picking and choosing of materials for pedagogical reasons—regularly occurs on college campuses both inside and outside of the classroom. This brief essay explains that curation in two contexts. Part I discusses the curation of courses inside the classroom. Part II discusses the curation of campus speakers outside the classroom. Though applied to different topics, the process of curation is similar in both contexts. Considering both forms of curation can help illuminate and resolve some of the most important issues underlying the debate regarding controversial campus speakers.

The First Amendment And The Great College Yearbook Reckoning, Maryann Grover

University of Richmond Law Review

I advance my argument in three parts. In Part I, I discuss the law as it currently applies to student publications. I begin by briefly addressing the law as it applies to student publications in high schools as a way of demonstrating the lack of clarity in the law as it applies to student publications on college campuses. I then discuss the current state of speech regulation for student publications, including yearbooks, on college campuses. In Part II, I discuss each of the categories of unprotected speech as they are currently interpreted by the Supreme Court, and I demonstrate how …

Closed Meetings Under Foia Turn Fifty: The Old, The New, And What To Do, Tyler C. Southall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Exercise And Comer: Robust Entrenchment Or Simply More Of A Muddle?, Mark Strasser

University of Richmond Law Review

Several states are barred by their own constitutions from spending public monies in support of sectarian institutions. The United States Supreme Court has manifested great ambivalence about the constitutionality of such limitations. Sometimes, the Court has impliedly endorsed them as a reasonable measure to assure that Establishment Clause guarantees are respected. At other times, the Court has suggested that such limitations are constitutionally disfavored, although the Court has not yet held that such amendments are per se unconstitutional. The Court’s most recent decision addressing state constitutional spending limitations, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, adds another layer of …

Race, Speech, And Sports, Matthew J. Parlow

University of Richmond Law Review

Race, sports, and free speech rights intersected in a very controversial and public way during the 2016 and 2017 National Football League (“NFL”) seasons. On August 26, 2016, Colin Kaepernick spurred a national debate when he refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem before the NFL preseason game between the Green Bay Packers and the San Francisco 49ers, Kaepernick’s team at the time.

Reconsidering Selective Conscientious Objection, Andrew J. Haile

University of Richmond Law Review

In 1971, in the midst of the Vietnam War, the United States Supreme Court decided that to qualify as a conscientious objector (“CO”) one must oppose all war, and not just a particular war. The Court’s decision in Gillette v. United States turned on its interpretation of section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act. Section 6(j) provided, in relevant part, that no person shall “be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” According to …

Is It Bad Law To Believe A Politician? Campaign Speech And Discriminatory Intent, Shawn E. Fields

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi To A Porn Star, An Egregious Mess At The Fcc Continues, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin, Keran Billaud, Kevin Bruckenstein, Tershone Phillips

University of Richmond Law Review

Using the WDBJ case as an analytical springboard, this article examines the tumultuous state of the FCC's indecency enforcement regime more than three years after the Supreme Court's June 2012 opinion in Fox Television Stations. Part I of this article briefly explores the missed First Amendment opportunities in Fox Television Stations, as well as some possible reasons why the Supreme Court chose to avoid the free-speech questions in that case." Part II addresses the FCC's decision in September 2012 to target only egregious instances of broadcast indecency and, in the process, to jettison hundreds of thousands of complaints that had …

This Is Just Not Working For Us: Why After Ten Years On The Job- It Is Time To Fire Garcetti, Jason Zenor

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

In Lane v. Franks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public employees who give truthful testimony in court are protected so long as it was outside their ordinary job duties. This issue arose after ten years of the Garcetti rule which does not protect employee speech pursuant to their job duties- a nebulous topic in the digital era. In applying Garcetti, lower courts have extended it to include any speech that is a product of job duties, even if it would serve the public interest. In Lane v. Franks, the Court amended the employee speech doctrine to protect …

This Is Just Not Working For Us: Why After Ten Years On The Job It Is Time To Fire Garcetti, Jason Zenor

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

In Lane v. Franks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public employees who give truthful testimony in court are protected so long as it was outside their ordinary job duties. This issue arose after ten years of the Garcetti rule which does not protect employee speech pursuant to their job duties- a nebulous topic in the digital era. In applying Garcetti, lower courts have extended it to include any speech that is a product of job duties, even if it would serve the public interest. In Lane v. Franks, the Court amended the employee speech doctrine to protect …

Content-Based Confusion And Panhandling: Muddling A Weathered First Amendment Doctrine Takes Its Toll On Society's Less Fortunate, Clay Calvert

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

This article examines multiple problems now plaguing the fundamental dichotomy in First Amendment jurisprudence between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech. The troubles were highlighted by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 divided decision in McCullen v. Coakley. Building from McCullen, this article uses a quartet of federal court rulings from 2014 and 2013 involving anti-begging ordinances affecting the homeless as analytical springboards for examining these issues in depth. Ultimately, the article proposes a three-step framework for mitigating the muddle and calls on the nation's high court to take action to clarify the proper test for distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral …

The Conforming Effect: First Amendment Implications Of Surveillance, Beyond Chilling Speech, Margot E. Kaminski, Shane Witnov

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Content-Based Confusion And Panhandling: Muddling A Weathered First Amendment Doctrine Takes Its Toll On Society's Less Fortunate, Clay Calvert

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

This article examines multiple problems now plaguing the fundamental dichotomy in First Amendment jurisprudence between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech. The troubles were highlighted by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 divided decision in McCullen v. Coakley. Building from McCullen, this article uses a quartet of federal court rulings from 2014 and 2013 involving anti-begging ordinances affecting the homeless as analytical springboards for examining these issues in depth. Ultimately, the article proposes a three-step framework for mitigating the muddle and calls on the nation's high court to take action to clarify the proper test for distinguishing between content-based and content-neutral …

Advancing An Adaptive Standard Of Strict Scrutiny For Content-Based Commercial Speech Regulation, Nat Stern, Mark Joseph Stern

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Keeping The “Free” In Teacher Speech Rights: Protecting Teachers And Their Use Of Social Media To Communicate With Students Beyond The Schoolhouse Gates, Mark Schroeder

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Debate is raging within many school districts around the country about public school teachers’ interactions with their students outside of school through social media sites, such as Facebook and MySpace.

Religious Freedom Legislation In The 2013 Virginia General Assembly, Ellis M. West

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

This article consists of the following sections: Section one presents the content of the proposed amendment and explains the ways in which it is unclear, redundant, and otherwise poorly written. Section two addresses the issue of whether the provisions intended to protect religious expression, including prayer, are necessary and can solve the problems they are intended to solve. It also identifies the crucial challenge in cases involving religious expression - namely, determining correctly whether it is the government or a private individual or group that is expressing or promoting a religious belief or practice. This determination must be made because …

Religious Freedom Legislation In The 2013 Virginia General Assembly, Ellis M. West

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

This article consists of the following sections: Section one presents the content of the proposed amendment and explains the ways in which it is unclear, redundant, and otherwise poorly written. Section two addresses the issue of whether the provisions intended to protect religious expression, including prayer, are necessary and can solve the problems they are intended to solve. It also identifies the crucial challenge in cases involving religious expression - namely, determining correctly whether it is the government or a private individual or group that is expressing or promoting a religious belief or practice. This determination must be made because …

Reclaiming Hazelwood: Public School Classrooms And A Return To The Supreme Court's Vision For Viewpoint-Specific Speech Regulation Policy, Brad Dickens

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

Federal and circuit courts continue to fiercely debate whether the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhineier requires school policies regulating student speech and expression to be viewpoint neutral. However, this note suggests that the language of Hazelwood itself shows that the Circuit debate may be misguided. The Supreme Court intended Hazelwood to stand as a narrow exception to its earlier holding in Tinker, and Hazelwood only applies in instances where the government's own voice is implicated, largely in a public context. When the school, and in effect the government, is speaking with its own voice, the school must …

Reclaiming Hazelwood: Public School Classrooms And A Return To The Supreme Court's Vision For Viewpoint-Specific Speech Regulation Policy, Brad Dickens

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

Federal and circuit courts continue to fiercely debate whether the Supreme Court's 1988 ruling in Hazelwood v. Kuhineier requires school policies regulating student speech and expression to be viewpoint neutral. However, this note suggests that the language of Hazelwood itself shows that the Circuit debate may be misguided. The Supreme Court intended Hazelwood to stand as a narrow exception to its earlier holding in Tinker, and Hazelwood only applies in instances where the government's own voice is implicated, largely in a public context. When the school, and in effect the government, is speaking with its own voice, the school must …

Students’ Free Speech Rights Shed At The Cyber Gate, Vivian Lei

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Education is one of the most important functions of the government. Because public schools are under the control of state and local authorities, the administrators and teachers of these schools are subject to requirements established in the United States Constitution. For example, for more than thirty years, the Supreme Court has supported the due process rights of students facing a deprivation of liberty and property interests in education.

The Chill Bill: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007 And The Forgotten Dangers To The First Amendment, Hank Gates

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

This comment will address whether the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it threatens to chill protected speech. Part II will outline the text of the House Bill 1592 as passed by the House of Representatives. Part III will outline the United States Supreme Court's overbreadth doctrine in its current form and the Supreme Court's major decisions on hate crime legislation in the past. Part IV will evaluate the potential dangers that the Act, in its current form, poses to protected speech. Ultimately, this comment concludes that Congress can draft hate crimes …

The Chill Bill: The Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2007 And The Forgotten Dangers To The First Amendment, Hank Gates

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

This comment will address whether the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it threatens to chill protected speech. Part II will outline the text of the House Bill 1592 as passed by the House of Representatives. Part III will outline the United States Supreme Court's overbreadth doctrine in its current form and the Supreme Court's major decisions on hate crime legislation in the past. Part IV will evaluate the potential dangers that the Act, in its current form, poses to protected speech. Ultimately, this comment concludes that Congress can draft hate crimes …

Rumsfeld V. Forum For Academic And Institutional Rights, Inc.:By Allowing Military Recruiters On Campus, Are Law Schoolsadvocating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?, Braxton Williams

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

The freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment encompasses more than mere spoken words; it also protects conduct that has an expressive quality, such as flag burning.' In the important case of United States v. O'Brien, the United States Supreme Court appeared to narrow these sorts of protections in cases where there is a sufficient government interest in prosecuting actions, such as burning draft cards, and when such acts are noncommunicative. After the Supreme Court's recent holding in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., the O'Brien holding's limitation on First Amendment protection for expressive conduct appears …

Public Employee Speech, Categorical Balancing And § 1983: A Critique Of Garcetti V. Ceballos, Sheldon H. Nahmod

University of Richmond Law Review

I propose to discuss Garcetti's First Amendment reasoning as well as the implications of the § 1983' setting in which Garcetti and other public employee free speech cases typically arise. After briefly setting out the Court's opinion and the three dissenting opinions, I begin by addressing the pros and cons of Garcetti, and in the course of so doing, I discuss the prior Pickering-Connick landscape that Garcetti so significantly altered. I consider the deeper First Amendment implications of Garcetti, including itsuse of categorical balancing to create an absolute immunity fromFirst Amendment liability for employer discipline based on job-required public employee …

Rumsfeld V. Forum For Academic And Institutional Rights, Inc.:By Allowing Military Recruiters On Campus, Are Law Schoolsadvocating "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?, Braxton Williams

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

The freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment encompasses more than mere spoken words; it also protects conduct that has an expressive quality, such as flag burning.' In the important case of United States v. O'Brien, the United States Supreme Court appeared to narrow these sorts of protections in cases where there is a sufficient government interest in prosecuting actions, such as burning draft cards, and when such acts are noncommunicative. After the Supreme Court's recent holding in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., the O'Brien holding's limitation on First Amendment protection for expressive conduct appears …