Law Commons^™

A Family Affair? Domestic Relations And Involuntary Public Figure Status, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The constitutional limitations on defamation damages have changed greatly over the past five decades. Initially, only statements about public officials triggered such limitations, but the class of individuals triggering the most demanding standard was subsequently expanded. Over the past half century, members of the Court could neither agree about the kinds of people nor the kinds of statements that should be afforded constitutional protection. Even when ostensibly agreeing about the criteria to be used in defamation cases, members of the Court disagreed greatly about how the announced criteria should be applied in practice.

One of the most doctrinally confusing aspects …

What’S It To You: The First Amendment And Matters Of Public Concern, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In Snyder v. Phelps, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment protects discussions on matters of public concern, thereby underscoring the importance of the distinction between matters of public concern and matters of mere private interest. Yet, the Court has never offered clear criteria by which to determine which speech falls into one category and which falls into the other. This article traces the development of the “matters of public concern” doctrine, explaining the role that the concept has played in cases ranging from defamation to employment termination to publication of (allegedly) private facts. The current jurisprudence …

Funeral Protests, Privacy, And The Constitution: What Is Next After Phelps?, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In Snyder v. Phelps, the United States Supreme Court struck down a damages award against Reverend Fred Phelps Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing a funeral. In a relatively short opinion, the Court suggested that the legal issues were straightforward—the First Amendment precludes the imposition of tort damages when the comments at issue involve matters of public concern. Yet, the Court failed to explain whether those comments that were not of public concern were somehow immunized by those that were, and also failed to explain how the holding fits into the current defamation and privacy jurisprudence. The opinion …