Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Government Speech 2.0, Helen L. Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Government Speech 2.0, Helen L. Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Danielle Keats Citron
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …
Liberating Copyright: Thinking Beyond Free Speech, Jennifer E. Rothman
Liberating Copyright: Thinking Beyond Free Speech, Jennifer E. Rothman
All Faculty Scholarship
Scholars have often turned to the First Amendment to limit the scope of ever-expanding copyright law. This approach has mostly failed to convince courts that independent review is merited and has offered little to individuals engaged in personal rather than political or cultural expression. In this Article, I consider the value of an alternative paradigm using the lens of substantive due process and liberty to evaluate users’ rights. A liberty-based approach uses this other developed body of constitutional law to demarcate justifiable personal, identity-based uses of copyrighted works. Uses that are essential for mental integrity, intimacy promotion, communication, or religious …
Government Speech 2.0, Helen L. Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Government Speech 2.0, Helen L. Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Faculty Scholarship
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …
Government Speech 2.0, Helen Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Government Speech 2.0, Helen Norton, Danielle Keats Citron
Publications
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine--which recognizes "government speech" as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint--only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these decisions, moreover, has the …
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Faculty Scholarship
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …