Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Right To Record Images Of Police In Public Places: Should Intent, Viewpoint, Or Journalistic Status Determine First Amendment Protection?, Clay Calvert
UF Law Faculty Publications
Using the February 2016 federal district court ruling in Fields v. City of Philadelphia as an analytical springboard, this Article examines growing judicial recognition of a qualified First Amendment right to record images of police working in public places. The Article argues that Judge Mark Kearney erred in Fields by requiring that citizens must intend to challenge or criticize police, via either spoken words or expressive conduct, in order for the act of recording to constitute "speech" under the First Amendment. It asserts that a mere intent to observe police-not to challenge or criticize them-suffices. It then also explores how …
Where's The Harm?: Free Speech And The Regulation Of Lies, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Where's The Harm?: Free Speech And The Regulation Of Lies, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
UF Law Faculty Publications
False factual information has no First Amendment value, and yet the United States Supreme Court has accorded lies a measure of First Amendment protection. The First Amendment imposes something in the nature of a presumption against government interference in public discourse. This presumption is rooted in suspicion of the State's ability to distinguish facts from falsehoods as well as its motives for doing so. However, the presumption against regulation of false speech is not absolute. It can be overcome when verifiably false speech poses a direct threat of harm to individual interests. Unlike other countries, the United States has never …
Brandenburg And The United States' War On Incitement Abroad: Defending A Double Standard, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Brandenburg And The United States' War On Incitement Abroad: Defending A Double Standard, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
UF Law Faculty Publications
While it is perfectly legitimate for the United States to attempt to persuade foreign citizens and media not to engage in advocacy of violent acts, the administration's rhetoric suggests that the United States expects foreign governments to take action against speech that would be protected by the First Amendment in the United States. What explains this apparent hypocrisy? Is this simply another example of the United States touting democracy at home while supporting despotism abroad? Or is the Brandenburg incitement standard so socially and culturally contingent that it is not appropriate for export, at least to the Arab Middle East? …