Law Commons^™

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …

Why The Actual Malice Test Should Be Eliminated, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

Under traditional common law, a plaintiff could recover damages for libel if she could prove that the defendant had published a factual statement about the plaintiff that tended to injure the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff, at most, was required to show negligence to recover damages for libel. While the amount of money that any given plaintiff could recover in damages was uncertain, one thing was clear: the First Amendment would not protect libel. In 1964, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court radically upended this received view of libel as unprotected speech. According to Sullivan, …

Arresting Assembly: An Argument Against Expanding Criminally Punishable Protest, Allison Freedman

Faculty Scholarship

ARRESTING ASSEMBLY: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST EXPANDING
CRIMINALLY PUNISHABLE PROTEST
ALLISON M. FREEDMAN

ABSTRACT

In recent years, public protests have shed light on societal inequities that had previously gone unheard. Yet instead of responding to protesters’ concerns, many state legislators are attempting to silence disenfranchised groups by introducing hundreds of “anti-protest” bills. This is a recent phenomenon and one that is accelerating—the largest wave of “anti-protest” bills was introduced on the heels of the most robust protest movement in recent history, Black Lives Matter during the summer of 2020.

Although it is clear that legislators are attempting to tamp down public …

The Stolen Election Lie And The Freedom Of Speech, Wes Henricksen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The New Pornography Wars, Julie A. Dahlstrom

Faculty Scholarship

The world’s largest online pornography conglomerate, MindGeek, has come under fire for the publishing of “rape videos,” child pornography, and nonconsensual pornography on its website, Pornhub. As in the “pornography wars” of the 1970s and 1980s, lawyers and activists have now turned to civil remedies and filed creative anti-trafficking lawsuits against MindGeek and third parties, like payment processing company, Visa. These lawsuits seek not only to achieve legal accountability for online sex trafficking but also to reframe a broader array of online harms as sex trafficking.

This Article explores what these new trafficking lawsuits mean for the future regulation of …

When “Riot” Is In The Eye Of The Beholder: The Critical Need For Constitutional Clarity In Riot Laws, Nancy C. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

In the twenty-first century, American streets are frequently filled with passionate protest and political dissent. Protesters of diverse backgrounds range from those waving flags or lying on the ground to re-enact police killings to those carrying lit torches or hand-made weapons. This Article addresses how, as between such groups, it may initially seem clear which has a propensity to engage in violent riots, but too often, “rioter” is in the eye of the beholder, with those both regulating and reporting on riots defining the term inconsistently. And ironically, while police brutality is often the subject of protests, non-violent protesters who …

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel V. Rauterberg

Faculty Scholarship

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Camey v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware's requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue "will likely be raised again." The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Delaware governors and chief justices lined up to defend the state's "nonpartisan" …