Law Commons^™

"Enough's Enough": Protest Law And The Tradition Of Chilling Indigenous Free Speech, Alix H. Bruce

Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

Indigenous peoples in the United States were not granted the full scope of their rights as citizens under the Constitution until the enactment of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Before that—and after—several state and federal campaigns worked to stifle the civil rights of Indigenous peoples. Many of those unjust and unconstitutional policies were upheld by the Supreme Court. In the current era, the anti-pipeline protests on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota sparked a new recognition of Indigenous resistance under the First Amendment—and vicious state and federal backlash against Indigenous free speech via the …

Listeners' Choices, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Speech is a matching problem. Speakers choose listeners, and listeners choose speakers. When their choices conflict, law often decides who speaks to whom. The pattern is clear: First Amendment doctrine consistently honors listeners' choices for speech. When willing and unwilling listeners' choices conflict, willing listeners win. And when competing speakers' choices conflict, listeners' choices break the tie. This Essay provides a theoretical framework for analyzing speech problems in terms of speakers' and listeners' choices, an argument for the centrality of listener choice to any coherent theory of free speech, and supporting examples from First Amendment caselaw.

A Dangerous Concoction: Pharmaceutical Marketing, Cognitive Biases, And First Amendment Overprotection, Cynthia M. Ho

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article argues that pharmaceutical marketing to doctors should be more critically evaluated and entitled to less First Amendment protection, contrary to a trend dating back to the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Sorrell. In particular, the Article argues that more information to doctors in the form of pharmaceutical marketing does not necessarily result in better patient outcomes. The Article adds a significant critique based on the existence and impact of cognitive bias literature that has thus far not been recognized in this area. If courts fully embrace this understanding, they should recognize that the government, through the Food and …

Deliberate Democracy, Truth, And Holmesian Social Darwinism, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

JUSTICE Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s “marketplace of ideas” analogy continues to deeply influence First Amendment doctrine. It provides a rational substratum upon which the political or self-realization characterizations of free speech are built. However, typically overlooked is the Social Darwinistic root of the Justice's thought. He championed the spread of ideas and the political sway of majority opinions. That analytical insight is key to many of the Supreme Court's free speech precedents. On the one hand, the concept is invaluable for defending free discussions about philosophy, political science, the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and social sciences. In these areas, the …

Data Subjects' Privacy Rights: Regulation Of Personal Data Retention And Erasure, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The European Union's right to erasure came into effect May 25, 2018, as Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). Unlike the U.S. "marketplace of ideas" model of free speech, the GDPR gives greater weight to data subjects' privacy interests than to audiences' curiosity about others' intimate lives. The U.S. and EU models advance human thirst for knowledge through open and uninhibited debates, whereas the internet marketplace tends to favor social media companies' commercial interests: put more specifically, free speech is not entirely harmonious with the interests of social media intermediaries whose algorithms tend to favor companies' bottom …

Marketplace Of Ideas, Privacy, And The Digital Audience, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The availability of almost limitless sets of digital information has opened a vast marketplace of ideas. Information service providers like Facebook and Twitter provide users with an array of personal information about products, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. While this data enriches the lives of those who share content on the internet, it comes at the expense of privacy. Social media companies disseminate news, advertisements, and political messages, while also capitalizing on consumers' private shopping, surfing, and traveling habits. Companies like Cambridge Analytica, Amazon, and Apple rely on algorithmic programs to mash up and scrape enormous amounts of online and otherwise …

Ventura V. Kyle And American Sniper; The Anatomy Of A Public Figure’S Lawsuit, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

Chris Kyle's book, American Sniper, detailed his exploits as a prolific Navy SEAL sniper. In a book subchapter Kyle detailed an encounter with a "Mr. Scruff Face" in a San Diego Bar. The book states that Ventura made certain statements that were demeaning of the United States and the Navy SEALS. Scruff Face was subsequently identified by Chris Kyle as Jesse Ventura, former governor of Minnesota. Ventura sued Chris Kyle for defamation, appropriation, and unjust enrichment. Relying on trial court documents, briefs, and the opinions in the case, this article probes those theories of recovery with an emphasis on the …

The (Limited) Constitutional Right To Compete In An Occupation, Rebecca Haw Allensworth

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is there a constitutional right to compete in an occupation? The “right to earn a living” movement, gaining steam in policy circles and winning some battles in the lower courts, says so. Advocates for this right say that the right to compete in an occupation stands on equal footing with our most sacred constitutional rights such as the right to be free from racial discrimination. This Article takes a different view, arguing that while there is a limited constitutional right to compete in an occupation, it is—and should be—weaker than these advocates claim. Some state licensing laws run afoul of …

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Scholarly Works

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …

Race-Conscious Admissions, Diversity, And Academic Freedom, Vinay Harpalani

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines the First Amendment component to race-conscious admissions policies. It argues that these policies reflect a core First Amendment value: academic freedom. It illustrates that race-conscious admissions policies promote academic freedom in two ways. One aspect of a university’s academic freedom is the selection of its own student body. Justice Felix Frankfurter stated this explicitly in his concurrence in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), which was later cited in Justice Lewis Powell's influential concurrence in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Additionally, the compelling interest in diversity has roots in the First Amendment. By …

Powerful Speakers And Their Listeners, Helen Norton

Publications

In certain settings, law sometimes puts listeners first when their First Amendment interests collide with speakers’. And collide they often do. Sometimes speakers prefer to tell lies when their listeners thirst for the truth. Sometimes listeners hope that speakers will reveal their secrets, while those speakers resist disclosure. And at still other times, speakers seek to address certain listeners when those listeners long to be left alone. When speakers’ and listeners’ First Amendment interests collide, whose interests should prevail? Law sometimes – but not always – puts listeners’ interests first in settings outside of public discourse where those listeners have …

Pregnancy And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

Publications

Suppose that you are pregnant and seated in the waiting room of a Planned Parenthood clinic, or maybe in a facility that advertises “Pregnant? We Can Help You.” This Essay discusses the First Amendment rules that apply to the government’s control of what you are about to hear.

If the government funds your clinic’s program, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that it does not violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause when it forbids your health-care provider from offering you information about available abortion services. Nor does the government violate the Free Speech Clause, the Court has held, when …

Shareholders United?, Andrew K. Jennings

Faculty Articles

Securities regulation has a way of crossing into other lanes. What public companies do is substantive regulation. How they govern themselves while doing it-or more importantly, how they disclose it-is securities regulation. So it is no surprise that the perennial concern over regulating money in politics should also become a question of federal securities regulation. The Shareholders United Act (the "Act")-passed by the House of Representatives as part of House Bill 1, an early, major piece of legislation in the 116th Congress-does just that. The Act would require that before engaging in political spending, public companies poll shareholders on how …

Who Tells Your Story: The Legality Of An Shift In Racial Preferences Within Casting Practices, Nicole Ligon

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Considerations Of History And Purpose In Constitutional Borrowing, Robert Tsai

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This essay is part of a symposium issue dedicated to "Constitutional Rights: Intersections, Synergies, and Conflicts" at William and Mary School of Law. I make four points. First, perfect harmony among rights might not always be normatively desirable. In fact, in some instances, such as when First Amendment and Second Amendment rights clash, we might wish to have expressive rights consistently trump gun rights. Second, we can't resolve clashes between rights in the abstract but instead must consult history in a broadly relevant rather than a narrowly "originalist" fashion. When we do so, we learn that armed expression and white …

Legal Vs. Non-Legal Responses To Hateful Expression, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

This chapter explains the understanding of all who seek to advance both free speech and equality anywhere in the world. It discusses supports the conclusions of many expert individuals and organizations around the world – that counterspeech and other non-censorial alternatives are much more likely than hate speech laws to prove effective in limiting hate speech and its possible harmful effects. Social scientists have confirmed that counterspeech by leaders in the pertinent community is especially persuasive in rebutting hateful speech and in countering its potential harmful effects. Speech that counters the potentially harmful impact of hate speech comprises a broad …

Citizens United As Bad Corporate Law, Leo E. Strine Jr., Jonathan Macey

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Article we show that Citizens United v. FEC, arguably the most important First Amendment case of the new millennium, is predicated on a fundamental misconception about the nature of the corporation. Specifically, Citizens United v. FEC, which prohibited the government from restricting independent expenditures for corporate communications, and held that corporations enjoy the same free speech rights to engage in political spending as human citizens, is grounded on the erroneous theory that corporations are “associations of citizens” rather than what they actually are: independent legal entities distinct from those who own their stock. Our contribution to the literature …

Equal Protection And The Male Gaze: An Approach To New Hampshire V. Lilley, Nicholas Mignanelli

Articles

This Article uses New Hampshire v. Lilley, a case recently decided by the New Hampshire Supreme Court, as a starting point for an equal protection analysis of indecent exposure laws that distinguish between women and men. After discussing contemporary equal protection jurisprudence and historicizing these laws, this Article uses the film theorist Laura Mulvey's concept of the "male gaze" to demonstrate how overbroad generalizations about sex and sexuality serve as the foundation for this legal distinction. This Article concludes by emphasizing that municipalities and states may continue to enact and enforce indecent exposure laws that reflect community standards, so …

Applying The First Amendment To The Internal Revenue Code: Minnesota Voters Alliance And The Tax Law’S Regulation Of Nonprofit Organizations’ Political Speech, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

On its face, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky is about which T-shirts, hats and buttons voters can wear at the polls. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s First Amendment analysis in Minnesota Voters Alliance extends beyond apparel at polling places. That decision impacts the ongoing debate about the Johnson Amendment, the now controversial provision of the Internal Revenue Code which forbids Section 501(c)(3) organizations from intervening in political campaigns. Minnesota Voters Alliance also affects the proper construction of Section 501(c)(3)’s ban on lobbying by tax-exempt entities as well as other provisions of the tax law taxing and precluding campaign intervention by …

Commercial Speech Protection As Consumer Protection, Felix T. Wu

Articles

The Supreme Court has long said that “the extension of First Amendment protection to commercial speech is justified principally by the value to consumers of the information such speech provides.” In other words, consumers—the recipients or listeners of commercial speech—are the ones the doctrine is meant to protect. In previous work, I explored the implications of taking this view seriously in three contexts: compelled speech, speech among commercial entities, and unwanted marketing. In each of those contexts, adopting a listener-oriented approach leads to the conclusion that many forms of commercial speech regulation should receive far less First Amendment scrutiny than …

Recording As Heckling, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

A growing body of authority recognizes that citizen recording of police officers and public space is protected by the First Amendment. But the judicial and scholarly momentum behind the emerging “right to record” fails to fully incorporate recording’s cost to another important right that also furthers First Amendment principles: the right to privacy.

This Article helps fill that gap by comprehensively analyzing the First Amendment interests of both the right to record and the right to privacy in public while highlighting the role of technology in altering the First Amendment landscape. Recording information can be critical to future speech and, …

Compelled Subsidies And Original Meaning, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

The rule against compelled subsidization of speech is at the forefront of modem First Amendment disputes. Challenges to mandatory union dues, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the federal "contraceptive mandate" have all featured variants of the anti-subsidization principle, reasoning that the government cannot compel people to support the objectionable activities of others. But the literature currently fails to evaluate modem compelled-subsidy doctrine in terms of the original meaning of the First Amendment. This Essay takes up that task.

Approaching any question of original meaning requires a willingness to encounter a constitutional world that looks very …

Political And Non-Political Speech And Guns, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Constitutional rights depend on justifications. Some combination of theory, his- tory, and practical reasoning needs to establish why and to what extent a given right warrants legal protection. The justifications that courts and theorists articulate for a given right determine the right’s breadth and the specific contours of its protection. Justification has particular importance at the formative stage of a newly recognized constitutional right. At present, courts are building doctrine around the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”1 recognized as an individ- ual right just over a decade ago in District of Columbia v. Heller.2 …

Conversion Therapy: A Brief Reflection On The History Of The Practice And Contemporary Regulatory Efforts, Tiffany C. Graham

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

When Audiences Object: Free Speech And Campus Speaker Protests Articles & Essays, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

In March 2017, conservative author Charles Murray arrived to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont, invited by a student affiliate of the American Enterprise Institute. Murray planned to discuss his 2013 book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Many Middlebury students and faculty, however, deplored Murray for an earlier book, 1994’s The Bell Curve, where he drew specious connections between race and intelligence. Others simply considered Murray an intellectual lightweight who didn’t warrant a speaking slot at the prestigious college. Murray’s critics objected to the Political Science Department’s co-sponsorship of his ppearance and the college president’s plan to …

Reynolds V. United States, Rewritten, Laura T. Kessler

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), Chief Justice Morrison Waite, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, upheld the federal Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act outlawing polygamy in the federal territories and providing criminal penalties for it. This is a re-writing of that opinion, presented in the form of a dissent, available in Feminist Judgments: Family Law Opinions Rewritten (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2020). Unlike the Court’s opinion, this dissent concludes that religious practice, as well as belief, is protected by the First Amendment. It therefore holds that a religious duty to engage in an unlawful practice may be a …

Christian Legislative Prayers And Christian Nationalism, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Justice Jackson In The Jehovah's Witnesses' Cases, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

I will address Justice Jackson and Jehovah’s Witnesses in four parts. First, I will begin with Robert Jackson himself, introducing the man who became a Supreme Court Justice, and who came to author Barnette and at least one other very notable opinion in a Jehovah’s Witness case. Second, I will turn to the Barnette case in its Supreme Court legal context, which turns out to be two Court terms, 1941–42 and 1942–43, of many Jehovah’s Witnesses cases. These cases produced a run of Court decisions that are a framework surrounding Barnette, and thus understanding them is important to …

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …

Taking Data, Michael C. Pollack

Articles

Technological development has created new forms of information, altered expectations of privacy, and given law enforcement more tools to examine that information and intrude on that privacy. One crucial facet of these changes involves internet service providers (ISPs): as people expose more of their lives to their ISPs—all the websites they visit, people they communicate with, emails they send, files they store, and more—law enforcement efforts to access that data become more and more common. But scholars and policymakers alike recognize that the existing statutory frameworks governing those efforts are based on obsolete technology and strike balances that are difficult …