Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 18 of 18
Full-Text Articles in Law
Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans
Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans
Cleveland State Law Review
A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …
Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen
Cleveland State Law Review
In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …
Buckeyes Against The Boycott: Why Ohio's Law Opposing Bds Is Protected Under The First Amendment, Hannah Kraus
Buckeyes Against The Boycott: Why Ohio's Law Opposing Bds Is Protected Under The First Amendment, Hannah Kraus
Cleveland State Law Review
In 2016, Ohio became the fourteenth state to enact legislation denouncing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel. Codified as § 9.76 of the Ohio Revised Code, this legislation prohibits any state agency from contracting with a company that boycotts Israel during the contractual period. While the constitutionality of § 9.76 has not been challenged, anti-BDS statutes passed by other state legislatures have faced First Amendment challenges. This Note argues that § 9.76 of the Ohio Revised Code complies with the First Amendment under the government speech doctrine. In 1991, the Supreme Court applied the government speech doctrine in …
The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter
The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter
Cleveland State Law Review
As America’s media and politicians continue to debate the free speech rights of NFL players, schoolchildren, and entertainers, the dialogue has confused many Americans as to what exactly the First Amendment protects. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ultimately assumes the role of an umpire in many of these issues, guiding the United States Supreme Court to incrementally “call balls and strikes.” In recent years, the Court has umpired employment rights and state action cases, and Roberts’s calls will likely further distance the Court that decided Morse v. Frederick from the one that decided Tinker v. Des Moines. Amid a …
Masterpiece Cakeshop'S Homiletics, Marc Spindelman
Masterpiece Cakeshop'S Homiletics, Marc Spindelman
Cleveland State Law Review
Viewed closely and comprehensively, Masterpiece Cakeshop, far from simply being the narrow, shallow, and modest decision many have taken it to be, is a rich, multi-faceted decision that cleaves and binds the parties to the case, carefully managing conflictual crisis. Through a ruling for a faithful custom-wedding-cake baker against a state whose legal processes are held to have been marred by anti-religious bias, the Court unfolds a cross-cutting array of constitutional wins and losses for cultural conservatives and traditional moralists, on the one hand, and for lesbians and gay men and their supporters committed to civil and equal rights, …
Tweaking Tinker: Redefining An Outdated Standard For The Internet Era, Shannon M. Raley
Tweaking Tinker: Redefining An Outdated Standard For The Internet Era, Shannon M. Raley
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note argues that the Tinker standard needs to be reevaluated to encompass Internet-related cases both by eliminating the “on-campus” requirement and by further defining what constitutes a “substantial disruption.” The “on-campus” requirement should be eliminated for the following reasons: 1) lower federal courts already disregard this condition for Internet-related cases; 2) it leads students to abuse their First Amendment rights; and 3) this requirement threatens the safety of teachers, students, and other school personnel. Additionally, Tinker's “substantial disruption” prong would be better understood as a factors test. This ensures that schools utilize the same criteria in determining whether a …
The Constitutional Status Of Speech About Oneself, R. George Wright
The Constitutional Status Of Speech About Oneself, R. George Wright
Cleveland State Law Review
We have accepted above the well-established idea that speech about oneself that is also intended to convey some sort of political idea or to address some matter of public concern can typically be distinguished from speech about oneself with no such further intent. On this basis, we have argued, contrary to recent contentions, that the latter sort of speech-speech that is "merely" about the self, or about one's merely personal or private concerns-should not generally qualify for any sort of elevated free speech protection. Fundamentally, this is because such speech does not systematically promote any of the consensually recognized and …
Have You Been Drinking Tonight Ms. Prynne - Ohio's Scarlet Letter For Ovi/Dui Offenders: A Violation Of First Amendment Protection Against Compelled Speech, William Livingston
Have You Been Drinking Tonight Ms. Prynne - Ohio's Scarlet Letter For Ovi/Dui Offenders: A Violation Of First Amendment Protection Against Compelled Speech, William Livingston
Cleveland State Law Review
This note examines the history of scarlet letter punishments. These types of sanctions raise many constitutional concerns; this Note will specifically address First Amendment compelled speech. Different standards of constitutional review for First Amendment violations and probation conditions will also be discussed. The note will also explain how Ohio's special license plate violates the First Amendment. Because the license plate is a legislative requirement that infringes upon free speech and eliminates judicial sentencing discretion, the state's interest must pass strict scrutiny. This analysis will confirm that the state's interest is legitimate but not compelling. The special license plate fails to …
Abridging Constitutional Rights: Sexting Legislation In Ohio, Weronika Kowalczyk
Abridging Constitutional Rights: Sexting Legislation In Ohio, Weronika Kowalczyk
Cleveland State Law Review
What happens when you combine technology, raging adolescent hormones, and rash decisions? As we have seen these past few years, one outcome is “sexting” the trend of teenagers transmitting sexually suggestive text messages or photographs through cell phones and similar communication devices. In 2009, the media was saturated with stories pertaining to sexting, from discussing the ramifications of engaging in it including cyber bullying, slashed reputations, and serious criminal charges to providing guidelines for what parents and educators could do to control or prevent it. Though sexting includes the transmission of messages as well as photographs, the majority of media …
First Amendment Protection Of Teachers' Instructional Speech: Extending Rust V. Sullivan To Ensure That Teachers Do Not Distort The Government Message, Emily White Kirsch
First Amendment Protection Of Teachers' Instructional Speech: Extending Rust V. Sullivan To Ensure That Teachers Do Not Distort The Government Message, Emily White Kirsch
Cleveland State Law Review
The emergence of political activism in the 2008 presidential election extended throughout the country and even to where partisan politics have no place: the public school classroom. In 2004, the New York City Board of Education enacted a regulation that prohibited teachers from wearing any material supporting political candidates or organizations. During the 2008 election, teachers who wanted to wear partisan political buttons in the classroom while teaching claimed that the regulation violated their First Amendment rights. Although the Southern District of New York ultimately held that the teachers had no First Amendment claim, the court's decision, which involved sorting …
Are Contemporary Community Standards No Longer Contemporary, Roman A. Kostenko
Are Contemporary Community Standards No Longer Contemporary, Roman A. Kostenko
Cleveland State Law Review
This note concurs with the decision reached by the Third Circuit. The federal obscenity law, which incorporated the contemporary community standards test is unconstitutional as applied to expression on the internet because it has chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Because freedom of speech would be restrained by any incorporation of community standards in federal regulation of the internet, the legislature should refrain from adopting a standard that would apply in all internet situations. Rather, with respect to obscenity, the internet should be left …
Lisa Herdahl And Religious Liberty , Nadine Strossen
Lisa Herdahl And Religious Liberty , Nadine Strossen
Cleveland State Law Review
Introduction of the ACLU’s Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award honoree, detailing her specific struggle and outlining the larger national picture her case reflected.
New Criticisms Of The Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine , Wayne M. Serra
New Criticisms Of The Libel-Proof Plaintiff Doctrine , Wayne M. Serra
Cleveland State Law Review
This paper will explore the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine and examine it in light of traditional standing and jurisdictional principles. Part II of this paper discusses the origin of the libel-proof doctrine and its application. Part III explores the general requirements for diversity actions in the federal district courts, the application of state law to those actions, and the impact of the First Amendment on state libel law. Part IV discusses standing to sue principles and analyzes the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine in light of those principles. Part V discusses some criticisms of the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine. Finally, Part VI concludes that …
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
Cleveland State Law Review
Thus, I focus my attention on the problem of the First Amendment when the government must make content-based choices. I want to divide my remarks into four parts. I begin by reviewing the traditional bedrock rule of the First Amendment: The government cannot regulate speech based on its content. Second, I identify a broad range of cases where this rule cannot apply because the government must make content-based choices. Third, I suggest that the usual First Amendment principles are not helpful in analyzing these cases. Finally, I offer some initial thoughts about directions for dealing with this problem.
Free Speech By The Light Of A Burning Cross, Jerome O'Callaghan
Free Speech By The Light Of A Burning Cross, Jerome O'Callaghan
Cleveland State Law Review
For scholars of the First Amendment this case is an excellent example of the dilemmas posed by many of the doctrines created by the Court. While Justice Scalia proposes an elaborate and novel understanding of the limits of free speech regulation, Justice White responds with an assertion that Scalia's reasoning is "transparently wrong," and that his opinion is a "radical revision of First Amendment law." According to Justice Stevens, the majority opinion is no more than "an adventure in a doctrinal wonderland." Part II of this paper examines the attacks made by Justices White and Stevens against the majority opinion. …
Student Publications, The First Amendment, And State Speech, T. D. Buckley Jr.
Student Publications, The First Amendment, And State Speech, T. D. Buckley Jr.
Cleveland State Law Review
The lower federal courts and state courts have been applying the first amendment in student press cases arising at public colleges and high schools since 1967. But ordinary first amendment analysis is inadequate in most student press disputes. As a result the courts in some cases have been unable to articulate satisfactorily the bases for good decisions. And in other cases the real issues generated in student press litigations have been ignored. This Article evaluates the cases so far decided, and proposes a new approach to student press disputes which would rationalize what the courts have intuitively done correctly in …
The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress
The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress
Cleveland State Law Review
The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …
The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress
The Impact Of Pacifica Foundation On Two Traditions Of Freedom Of Expression, Stephen W. Gard, Jeffrey Endress
Cleveland State Law Review
The United States Supreme Court, in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, had a magnificent opportunity to either begin the process of defining first amendment limitations on the scope of the authority of the FCC to regulate the content of broadcast expression, explicate a rational ground for the differential status of broadcasting, or perhaps both. The purpose of this article is not to debate the wisdom of the use of sensitive language on the electronic media or elsewhere. Nor is it our purpose to debate the substantive question of whether the Court reached the proper result in Pacifica, although we will necessarily …