Law Commons^™

Can A Politician Block You On Social Media?, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Is Placing A Cross On Public Property Constitutional?, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

No, Jeff Sessions, There Isn't A War On Religion, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Trump's Forced Patriotism Has No Place In A Free Society, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

This Is Why We Protect Hate Speech, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

The Supreme Court's Brain Teaser, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

The Fight For Free Speech, Even If It's Offensive, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

When Is A Lie An Affront To The Law?, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

Dropping F-Bombs At The Supreme Court, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield

Alan E Garfield

This essay considers the provocative question of whether it is strategically wise for a lawyer to use foul language during a Supreme Court oral argument. This issue doesn’t come up often. But it does when a lawyer claims his client’s First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. If the lawyer doesn’t use his client’s offensive words, he risks conceding that these words are so horrid they warrant suppression. But if he does use the words, he risks alienating justices who find the words unseemly. The essay uses the “fleeting expletives” case that was …

“Reasoning-Lite” In The Violent Video Game Case, Alan Garfield

Alan E Garfield

One might have expected that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the violent video game case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, would have been a thoughtful balancing of society’s competing interests in protecting freedom of speech and protecting children from harm. After all, the Supreme Court had held decades earlier that the government could deny minors access to soft-porn, or what the Court called “girlie magazines.” So one could have assumed the Court would seriously consider California’s claim that minors also needed sheltering from the grittier world of violent video game rapes, beheadings, and ethnic cleansings. Yet, as Justice Scalia’s …