Law Commons^™

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

Reflections On Nomos: Paideic Communities And Same Sex Weddings, Marie A. Failinger

Touro Law Review

Robert Cover’s Nomos and Narrative is an instructive tale for the constitutional battle over whether religious wedding vendors must be required to serve same-sex couples. He helps us see how contending communities’ deep narratives of martyrdom and obedience to the values of their paideic communities can be silenced by the imperial community’s insistence on choosing one community’s story over another community’s in adjudication. The wedding vendor cases call for an alternative to jurispathic violence, for a constitutionally redemptive response that prizes a nomos of inclusion and respect for difference.

Regulating Fraud On The Marketplace Of Ideas: Federal Securities Law As A Model For Constitutionally Permissible Social Media Regulation, Michael M. Epstein

Seattle University Law Review

This article begins with an introduction discussing speech falsity and the duty under U.S. law by comparing commercial and noncommercial speech. Part I explores the problem of online disinformation. Part II addresses online disinformation in a non-commercial context. Part III contains three subsections assesses non-transactional commercial speech as a basis for non-commercial disinformation regulation. Part IV advocates for a fiduciary duty to fashion a remedy. Part V of this article concludes by suggesting a possible solution for creating a online disinformation law that could survive the First Amendment.

United States Food Law Update: Shrouded By Election-Year Politics, State Initiatives And Private Lawsuits Fill In The Gaps Created By Congressional And Agency Ossification, A. Bryan Endres, Lisa R. Schlessinger, Rachel Armstrong

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Observers of food law in the 2012 presidential election year witnessed a dramatic slowing of federal initiatives-perhaps arising from a desire by both Congress and the administration to avoid upsetting critical constituent groups during a year seemingly dominated by campaigns and endless talking points. For example, Congress failed to take action on a unique compromise between what some had considered mortal enemies-the Humane Society of the United States and United Egg Producers-that would implement a federal animal welfare standard for laying hens in return for abandoning ballot measures in various states. Similarly, the FDA waited until the early days of …

Recent Developments, Peyton Hildebrand

Arkansas Law Review

The Eighth Circuit upheld preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the plaintiffs who challenged Arkansas's anti-loitering law for violating their free speech rights. Though Arkansas claimed that it would not enforce the anti-loitering statute against "'polite' and 'courteous' beggars like [plaintiffs]," because the law's plain language applied to the plaintiffs' intended activities, they had an objectively reasonable fear of prosecution.' Thus, they had a constitutional injury as required for standing.

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

American Legion V. American Humanist Association, Seth T. Bonilla

Public Land & Resources Law Review

The separation of church and state is a key element of American democracy, but its interpretation has been challenged as the country grows more diverse. In American Legion v. American Humanist Association, the Supreme Court adopted a new standard to analyze whether a religious symbol on public land maintained by public funding violated the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

San Diego Law Review

This article maintains that, under defined circumstances, a judge should be able to grant an injunction that forbids the defendant’s proved defamation. It analyzes the common law of defamation, the constitutional prior restraint doctrine, the constitutional protection for defamation that stems from New York Times v. Sullivan, and injunctions and their enforcement.

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court expanded protection for expression by adding an injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgment for defamation. An injunction that forbids the defendant’s …

Influencing Juries In Litigation "Hot Spots", Megan M. La Belle

Indiana Law Journal

This Article considers how corporations are using image advertising in litigation "hot spots" as a means of influencing litigation outcomes. It describes how Samsung and other companies advertised in the Eastern District of Texas--a patent litigation "hot spot"--to curry favor with the people who live there, including by sponsoring an ice rink located directly outside the courthouse. To be sure, image advertisements are constitutionally protected speech and might even warrant the highest level of protection under the First Amendment when they are not purely commercial in nature. Still, the Article argues, courts should be able to prohibit such advertisements altogether, …

Ballot Selfies: Balancing The Right To Speak Out On Political Issues And The Right To Vote Free From Improper Influence And Coercion, Isidora Koutsoulias

Journal of Law and Policy

Courts and legislatures face the difficult task of balancing individual First Amendment rights with other basic freedoms, a task that has become increasingly challenging with the advent of new technology. The emergence of the ballot selfie has caused a legal uproar due to the perception that it may compromise the sanctity of the electoral process and the secret ballot process by facilitating vote buying and coercion. Consequently, several states have enacted laws that prohibit most or all ballot selfies. However, many individuals have rightfully protested these laws as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech. This Note argues that although …

Ballot Selfies: Balancing The Right To Speak Out On Political Issues And The Right To Vote Free From Improper Influence And Coercion, Isidora Koutsoulias

Journal of Law and Policy

Courts and legislatures face the difficult task of balancing individual First Amendment rights with other basic freedoms, a task that has become increasingly challenging with the advent of new technology. The emergence of the ballot selfie has caused a legal uproar due to the perception that it may compromise the sanctity of the electoral process and the secret ballot process by facilitating vote buying and coercion. Consequently, several states have enacted laws that prohibit most or all ballot selfies. However, many individuals have rightfully protested these laws as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech. This Note argues that although …

Injury-In-Fact In Chilling Effect Challenges To Public University Speech Codes, Jennifer L. Bruneau

Catholic University Law Review

Campus speech codes began to spring up on university campuses during the 1980s and continue to operate today. The codes regulate various forms of arguably offensive speech, including speech regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, ideology, views, and political affiliation. Numerous litigants have challenged the chilling effect these policies have on student and faculty speech, but in cases where the challenged code has not yet been enforced, some courts find that the plaintiff has not met the “injury-in-fact” requirement for Article III standing. The Supreme Court has not ruled on standing requirements in speech code challenges and lower courts are divided. …

Bad News: Privacy Ruling To Increase Press Litigation, The Florida Star V. B.J.F., Mary Ellen Hockwalt

Akron Law Review

This note analyzes the history and precedent upon which the Court relied in reaching Florida Star's "harsh outcome." Next, the note discusses how the Court, by refusing to extend its holding beyond the facts of the case and give broad Constitutional protection to publications of truth, failed to provide lower courts with any guidance in deciding future invasion of privacy actions. Finally, the note examines the Court's balancing test: weighing the privacy interests of a crime victim against the newspaper's freedom to print truthful information.

Mcintyre V. Ohio Elections Comm'n: "A Whole New Boutique Of Wonderful First Amendment Litigation Opens Its Doors", Mark A. Whitt

Akron Law Review

This Note analyzes the Court's decision in McIntyre. Part II defines the issue presented in the case and provides a general background on disclosure statutes, with particular attention drawn to the Supreme Court's decision in Talley v. California. A brief discussion of various state court decisions post-Talley is also provided. The Statement of the Case in Part III presents the facts, procedural history and holding of the case. Part IV analyzes the Court's holding.

This Note disagrees with the Court's holding for three reasons. First, it argues that the Court misinterpreted the history of anonymous political speech and engaged in …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Watson V. State Commission On Judicial Conduct, Denise Shanley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress: New Tort Problem For The Mass Media, Robert E. Drechsel

Pepperdine Law Review

Negligent infliction of emotional distress is becoming an increasingly popular cause of action to be utilized against media defendants. This article begins by tracing the development of the tort and explaining its central elements through cases involving mass media defendants. It studies the relationship between negligent infliction and the torts of libel, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After considering the appropriate balance between expression and emotional tranquility, it is concluded that negligent infliction actions present an ominous threat to the free flow of expression. Sound policy considerations, flowing in part from the first amendment, dictate that …

Analysis Of A First Amendment Challenge To Rent-A-Judge Proceedings , Perry L. Glantz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

A First Amendment Right Of Access To A Juror's Identity: Toward A Fuller Understanding Of The Jury's Deliberative Process , Robert Lloyd Raskopf

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "Strong Medicine" Of The Overbreadth Doctrine: When Statutory Exceptions Are No More Than A Placebo, Christopher A. Pierce

Federal Communications Law Journal

In United States v. Stevens, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a federal statute criminalizing the interstate sale and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty on First Amendment grounds. While Stevens demonstrates the Court's reluctance to create a new category of speech outside of First Amendment protection, Stevens also stands for the proposition that borrowing the exceptions clause from the Court's obscenity standard will not adequately protect a statute from invalidation as overbroad. This Note discusses the use of the obscenity standard's exceptions clause in nonobscenity statutes and the Court's treatment of the exceptions clause in Stevens. This Note concludes …

American Academy Of Religion V. Napolitano, Margaret Laufman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

Fcc V. Fox Television Stations And The Fcc's New Fleeting Expletive Policy, Jerome A. Barron

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article focuses on the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld an important change in the FCC indecency regulation. In the past, the FCC's policy had been that the broadcast of a single expletive did not violate FCC indecency policy. In order for such fleeting expletives to be actionable, the FCC required that they had to be repetitive and gratuitous. But in 2004, in response to the use of some expletives by entertainers during the Golden Globe Awards, the FCC changed its policy and …

Performing Art: National Endowment For The Arts V. Finley, Randall P. Bezanson

Federal Communications Law Journal

In this modified version of a chapter in his forthcoming book, ART AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH (Univ. of Illinois Press, 2008-09), Professor Bezanson begins to probe the nature of art and its relation to the first amendment free speech guarantee. The essay uses the Finley v. NEA case, and specifically its discussion of Finley's performance art, to critique the Supreme Court's very approach to the Finley case, and to view the issues from the perspective of art, artistic freedom, and the Supreme Court's role in fashioning constitutional protection for art as art, and not simply as cognitive speech.

Reassessing Turner And Litigating The Must-Carry Law Beyond A Facial Challenge, R. Matthew Warner

Federal Communications Law Journal

In recent decades, the must-carry rules have had a troubled constitutional history. After two sets of rules were struck down by the D.C. Circuit for violating the First Amendment rights of both cable programmers and operators, Congress revised the must-carry rules in the 1992 Cable Act. In 1997, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that the congressional must-carry law was facially constitutional. However, does the Turner II decision preclude further First Amendment challenges to the must-carry law? This Note argues that the answer is no and that the time is drawing near for new challenges.

Constitutional Law And Values—Version ’08 (Not Necessarily An Upgrade), Nadine Strossen

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation In The October 2005 Term, Martin Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Availability Or Practical Obscurity: The Debate Over Public Access To Court Records On The Internet, Arminda Bradford Bepko

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jon Newman’S Theory Of Disparagement And The First Amendment In The Administrative State, Edward L. Rubin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.