Law Commons^™

Content Moderation Regulation As Legal Role-Scripting, Sari Mazzurco

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Lawmakers and scholars concerned with content moderation regulation typically appeal to "analogies" to justify or undermine different forms of regulation. The logic goes: law should afford individuals due process rights against speech platforms because speech platforms are "like" speech governors as a matter of objective reality. Other common analogies include common carriers, publishers, distributors, shopping malls, and bookstores. Commentators attempt to invoke social roles to understand what the content moderation relationship is, what behaviors are "right" and "wrong" within it, and how law should police behavioral deviations. But they do so without relying on foundational sociology theory that explains what …

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

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

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” - …

John Stuart Mill And Political Correctness, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This article will examine Mill’s arguments in favor of unrestrained freedom of speech and his objection to the social censorship of speech. It will then discuss the origins and impact of what is now characterized as political correctness. The article will then define the concept of social censorship and attempt to distinguish pure social censorship from private tangible punishment of speech. Next, the article will examine the ways in which social censorship serves important social goals and promotes free speech as well as the ways in which it undermines free speech. It will especially focus on the damage to intellectual …

Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate The First Amendment?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When Congress passed the nation’s first comprehensive tobacco bill in 2009, it replaced the familiar Surgeon General’s warnings, last updated in 1984, with nine blunter warnings. The law also directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') to require color graphics to accompany the textual warnings. By law, the warnings would cover the top fifty percent of the front and back of tobacco packaging and the top twenty percent of print advertisements, bringing the United States closer to many peer countries that now require graphic warnings. Tobacco companies challenged the requirement on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the compelled disclosures …

Can Speech By Fda-Regulated Firms Ever Be Noncommercial?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article considers whether speech by pharmaceutical, medical device, and other FDA-regulated companies can ever be noncommercial and thus subject to heightened protection under the First Amendment. Since the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a right to commercial speech in 1976, there have been 24 published federal judicial opinions in which an FDA-regulated firm has argued that its speech was protected. Courts have categorized the speech as commercial in all but two cases, neither of which involved FDA rules or enforcement.

I examine the tests and factors courts claim they use when making this threshold distinction, then identify the various …

Unanimously Wrong, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The Supreme Court was unanimously wrong in Rumsfeld v. FAIR. Though rare, it's not the first time the Court has been unanimously wrong. Its most notorious such decisions have come, like FAIR, in cases where the Court conspicuously failed even to appreciate the importance of the constitutional freedoms under attack from legislative majorities. In these cases, the Court's very rhetoric exposed its myopic vision in ways that now seem embarrassing. Does FAIR, so obviously correct to so many people right now, await the same ignominy decades away? FAIR was wrong in tone, a dismissive vox populi, adopted by a Court …

The Antipaternalism Principle In The First Amendment, Dale Carpenter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Commentators generally agree the First Amendment is hostile to paternalism. Yet, most analysts invoke the idea of free speech antipaternalism without examining its roots, explaining what it means, or discussing what it entails. There has been no attempt to identify and to explain the antipaternalism principle across a variety of free speech domains. This Article examines the nature and reach of this particular brand of First Amendment exceptionalism.

In Part I the author reviews First Amendment jurisprudence where the Supreme Court evinces, either explicitly or implicitly, some aversion to paternalism. This review covers several free speech frontiers, including commercial speech, …

Copyright Under Siege: The First Amendment Front, Lackland H. Bloom Jr.

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Over the past decade, the law of copyright - traditionally an arcane and obscure specialty - has evolved into an extraordinarily controversial legal arena. To a significant extent, though not exclusively, this has been caused by the emerging clashes between copyright on the one hand and digital technology and the internet on the other. Some see copyright as the aggressor in the copyright wars, guilty of threatening the digital revolution, the internet, information policy, privacy, freedom of speech and the public domain. Much of this assault on copyright is culturally driven by the Internet's champions. Inevitably, this cultural challenge is …