Law Commons^™

Tinker-Ing With Speech Categories: Solving The Off-Campus Student Speech Problem With A Categorical Approach And A Comprehensive Framework, Scott Dranoff

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Innocent Beware: On Religion Clause Jurisprudence And The Negligent Retention Or Hiring Of Clergy, Mark Strasser

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech, Defamation, And Injunctions, David S. Ardia

William & Mary Law Review

It has long been a fixture of Anglo-American law that defamation plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief; their remedies are solely monetary. Indeed, it has been repeated as a truism: “equity will not enjoin a libel.” This precept rests on one of the strongest presumptions in First Amendment jurisprudence: that injunctions against libel and other kinds of speech are unconstitutional prior restraints. But it may not be true, at least not anymore.

Over the past decade, the Internet has brought increased attention to the adequacy of the remedies available in defamation cases. Prior to the widespread availability of digital …

Secondary Speech And The Protective Approach To Interpretive Dualities In The Roberts Court, Nat Stern

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Section 5: First Amendment & Separation Of Powers, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: Town Of Greece V. Galloway, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Gary Wall, Plaintiff-Appellant V. James Wade, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees: Reply Brief Of Appellant, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii, Patricia E. Roberts

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Stop This Insanity, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, V. Federal Election Commission, Appellee: Reply Brief Of Appellants, Dan Backer, Patricia E. Roberts, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Tara A. Brennan

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Gary Wall, Plaintiff-Appellant V. James Wade, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees: Brief Of Appellant, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii, Patricia E. Roberts

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

A Winn For Originalism Puts Establishment Clause Reform Within Reach, Patrick T. Gillen

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Price Of Porn & Pugilism: Reconciling Brown V. Entertainment Merchants Association With Ginsberg V. New York Through A Media-Specific Approach, Dennis A. Demarco

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Distinguishing Between Custom And Law: Empirical Examples Of Endogeneity In Property And First Amendment Precedents, Daniel L. Chen, Susan Yeh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Justices Hawking Jesus: Endorsement Through Citation To Religious Amici In Supreme Court Opinions, Tiffany Marie Westfall Ferris

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Detailing Commercial Speech: What Pharmaceutical Marketing Reveals About Bans On Commercial Speech, Andrew J. Wolf

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Stop This Insanity, Inc., Et Al., Appellants, V. Federal Election Commission, Appellee: Brief Of Appellants, Dan Backer, Patricia E. Roberts, Jessica L. Delaney, Bryan U. Gividen, Tillman J. Breckenridge

Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic

No abstract provided.

Speech, Intent, And The Chilling Effect, Leslie Kendrick

William & Mary Law Review

Speaker’s intent requirements are a common but unremarked feature of First Amendment law. From the “actual malice” standard for defamation to the specific-intent requirement for incitement, many types of expression are protected or unprotected depending on the state of mind with which they are said. To the extent that courts and commentators have considered why speaker’s intent should determine First Amendment protection, they have relied upon the chilling effect. On this view, imposing strict liability for harmful speech, such as defamatory statements, would overdeter, or chill, valuable speech, such as true political information. Intent requirements are necessary prophylactically to provide …

The Supreme Court's Theory Of Private Law, Nathan B. Oman, Jason M. Solomon

Faculty Publications

In this Article, we revisit the clash between private law and the First Amendment in the Supreme Court’s recent case, Snyder v. Phelps, using a private-law lens. We are scholars who write about private law as individual justice, a perspective that has been lost in recent years but is currently enjoying something of a revival.

Our argument is that the Supreme Court’s theory of private law has led it down a path that has distorted its doctrine in several areas, including the First Amendment–tort clash in Snyder. In areas that range from punitive damages to preemption, the Supreme Court has …

The First Amendment’S Global Dimension, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

(No) State Interests In Regulating Gender: How Suppression Of Gender Nonconformity Violates Freedom Of Speech, Jeffrey Kosbie

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

Despite limited growth in legal protections for transgender people, dress and appearance are largely treated as unprotected matters of personal preference. In response, lawyers and scholars argue that dress and appearance are intimately connected to the expression of identity. Nonetheless, courts have generally deferred to the government’s proffered justifications for these laws.

This article refocuses on the government’s alleged interests in regulating gender nonconformity. Using a First Amendment analysis, the article reveals how seemingly neutral government interests are used to single out conduct because it expresses messages of gender nonconformity. This approach avoids impossible questions about the subjective intent of …