Law Commons^™

Weaponizing Proof Of Harm In First Amendment Cases: When Scientific Evidence And Deference To The Views Of Professional Associations Collide In The Battle Against Conversion Therapy, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article uses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s divided decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton in late 2020 as a springboard for examining battles in First Amendment jurisprudence over proof of causation of harm and the level of deference owed to the judgments of learned societies. A two-judge majority held in Otto that a pair of local ordinances banning speechbased conversion therapy on minors violated the First Amendment, with those measures failing the rigorous strict scrutiny standard of review. Crucial to the majority’s ruling was its conclusion that insufficient evidence exists that conversion therapy—also …

The Power Of Public Concern And First Amendment Values: Insulating Speech In Sports And Entertainment From Tort Liability For Others' Actions, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

When should First Amendment interests in free expression shield speakers from civil liability for harm to others caused by third parties who allegedly followed or otherwise were inspired by the speakers' words? Two recent federal court opinions - Higgins v. Kentucky Sports Radio, LLC involving post-game coverage by sports commentators about a college basketball referee, and Stricklin v. Stefani pivoting on a singer's words to her concert audience - illustrate similar yet distinct methodologies for analyzing this important question. The speech of the commentators in Higgins allegedly "incited the harassment" by listeners and readers of referee John Higgins and his …

Weaponizing Proof Of Harm In First Amendment Cases: When Scientific Evidence And Deference To The Views Of Professional Associations Collide In The Battle Against Conversion Therapy, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article uses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s divided decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton in late 2020 as a springboard for examining battles in First Amendment jurisprudence over proof of causation of harm and the level of deference owed to the judgments of learned societies. A two-judge majority held in Otto that a pair of local ordinances banning speechbased conversion therapy on minors violated the First Amendment, with those measures failing the rigorous strict scrutiny standard of review. Crucial to the majority’s ruling was its conclusion that insufficient evidence exists that conversion therapy—also …

Transparency And The First, Mark Fenster

UF Law Faculty Publications

In his book The First: How to Think About Hate Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump, Stanley Fish neatly reverses the polarity of rights-based claims that the public enjoys, under the First Amendment’s free speech and press rights, a right to government information. Transparency and free speech ideals are indeed related, he concedes, because they share a political vision and conceptual grounding in the notion that robust conceptions of free speech carry a commitment to increase the flow of information. But this is not a good thing, Fish argues—rather, the relationship between the two merely …

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate or rational …

Scrutiny-Determination Avoidance In First Amendment Cases: Laudable Minimalism Or Condemnable Evasion?, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the United States Supreme Court’s practice in First Amendment cases of not resolving the precise level of scrutiny that applies to measure a statute’s validity. Rather than opting for one of two tiers of scrutiny — one more rigorous than the other—the Court sometimes dodges the issue. It does this by concluding that a statute would not pass muster under the more lenient standard, thereby rendering it unnecessary to decide which test was, in fact, more appropriate. The Court thus adopts an “assuming-without-deciding” logic in such cases, simply supposing the lesser standard applies without definitively holding as …

Rescinding Admission Offers In Higher Education: The Clash Between Free Speech And Institutional Academic Freedom When Prospective Students' Racist Posts Are Exposed, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the tension between a prospective college student's First Amendment freedom of speech and a public university's unenumerated, inchoate right of institutional academic freedom. The friction between these interests was cast in high relief in 2020 when several schools confronted dual issues: (1) whether to rescind offers of admission to individuals who later were discovered to have engaged in offensive speech, and (2) whether revoking admission offers because of odious, hateful messages would violate the constitutional right of free expression. The Article argues that the right of institutional academic freedom-albeit maddeningly amorphous-encompasses a public institution's ability to choose …

Escaping Doctrinal Lockboxes In First Amendment Jurisprudence: Workarounds For Strict Scrutiny For Low-Value Speech In The Face Of Stevens And Reed, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion in the crush-video case of United States v. Stevens made it extremely difficult to declare new varieties of low-value speech unprotected by the First Amendment. Five years later, the Court’s sign-ordinance ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert made it exceedingly tough for facially content-based regulations imposed on presumptively protected speech to be analyzed by any standard of judicial review less rigorous than the demanding strict scrutiny test. This Article examines how some courts today, despite being hemmed in by the strictures of both Stevens and Reed, are creatively unearthing novel ways to …

Troll Storms And Tort Liability For Speech Urging Action By Others: A First Amendment Analysis And An Initial Step Toward A Federal Rule, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Commentary examines when, consistent with First Amendment principles of free expression, speakers can be held tortiously responsible for the actions of others with whom they have no contractual or employer-employee relationship. It argues that recent lawsuits against Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin for sparking “troll storms” provide a timely analytical springboard into the issue of vicarious tort liability. Furthermore, such liability is particularly problematic when a speaker’s message urging action does not fall into an unprotected category of expression, such as incitement or true threats, and thus, were it not for tort law, would be fully protected. In examining …

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First Amendment …

The First Amendment And Speech Urging Suicide: Lessons From The Case Of Michelle Carter And The Need To Expand Brandenburg'S Application, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the level of First Amendment protection that applies when a defendant-speaker is charged with involuntary manslaughter based on successfully urging a person to commit suicide. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’ February 2019 decision in Commonwealth v. Carter provides a timely analytical springboard. The Article argues that courts should adopt the United States Supreme Court’s test for incitement created a half-century ago in Brandenburg v. Ohio before such speech is deemed unprotected by the First Amendment. It contends this standard is appropriate even in involuntary manslaughter cases where intent to cause a specific result is not required …

Wither Zauderer, Blossom Heightened Scrutiny? How The Supreme Court’S 2018 Rulings In Becerra And Janus Exacerbate Problems With Compelled-Speech Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines how the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decisions in the First Amendment cases of National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, muddle an already disorderly compelled-speech doctrine. Specifically, dual five-to-four decisions in Becerra and Janus raise key questions about the level of scrutiny—either a heightened test or a deferential variant of rational basis review—against which statutes compelling expression should be measured. Critically, Becerra illustrates the willingness of the Court’s conservative Justices to narrowly confine the aging compelled-speech test from Zauderer v. …

Certifying Questions In First Amendment Cases: Free Speech, Statutory Ambiguity, And Definitive Interpretations, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

In the First Amendment-based speech cases of both Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky in 2018 and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman in 2017, Justice Sonia Sotomayor forcefully contended that the United States Supreme Court should have certified questions about statutory meaning to the highest relevant state court. This Article examines certification—its purposes, its pros, and its cons—in cases pivoting on whether ambiguous state statutes violate the First Amendment. Mansky and Expressions Hair Design provide timely analytical springboards. The Article argues that certification carries heightened importance today. That is because the justices now frequently fracture along perceived political lines over when …

Changing Faces: Morphed Child Pornography Images And The First Amendment, Stacey B. Steinberg

UF Law Faculty Publications

Technology has changed the face of child pornography. The Supreme Court has held that child pornography harms a child both in the creation of the image and the circulation of the image, and thus has ruled that the possession and distribution of child pornography falls outside the realm of First Amendment protections. However, today’s images depicting child pornography do not always depict an actual child engaged in a pornographic act. Instead, some images depicting child pornography are “morphed images.”

Morphed child pornography is created when the innocent image of a child is combined with a separate, sexually explicit image, usually …

The Fcc And Profane Language: The Lugubrious Legacy Of A Moral Panic And A Grossly Offensive Definition That Must Be Jettisoned, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) regulation of profane language since 2004. That year is when the FCC, facing a moral panic, radically altered its profanity tack. Unlike obscenity and indecency, profanity—a third content category over which the Commission holds statutory authority—is seldom analyzed.

This Article argues that the FCC’s current definition of profane language not only strips its meaning from its religious roots, but also: (1) is both unconstitutionally vague and overbroad; and (2) violates core First Amendment principles against censoring speech that merely offends. The U.S. Supreme Court’s reinvigorated emphasis on safeguarding offensive expression in cases …

Merging Offensive-Speech Cases With Viewpoint-Discrimination Principles: The Immediate Impact Of Matal V. Tam On Two Strands Of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines flaws with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam that equated giving offense with viewpoint discrimination. Already, the Court’s language in Tam that “giving offense is a viewpoint” is being cited by multiple lower courts. This Article argues, however, that giving offense is not synonymous with viewpoint discrimination. This Article contends that the Court in Tam conflated two distinct strands of First Amendment jurisprudence—namely, its offensive-speech cases with principles against viewpoint discrimination. The Article proposes two possible paths forward to help courts better clarify when a case such as Tam should be analyzed as …

Is Everything A Full-Blown First Amendment Case After Becerra And Janus? Sorting Out Standards Of Scrutiny And Untangling "Speech As Speech" Cases From Disputes Incidentally Affecting Expression, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 First Amendment-based decisions in both National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. The Article illustrates how the rulings in these right-not-to-speak cases deepen the divide on today’s Court over when a case affecting speech merits heightened First Amendment analysis (be it strict or intermediate scrutiny) and when it only deserves rational basis review as an economic or social regulation. The cases nudge to the breaking point a dangerous game of push-and-pull between the Court’s conservative and liberal justices …

Gag Clauses And The Right To Gripe: The Consumer Review Fairness Act Of 2016 & State Efforts To Protect Online Reviews From Contractual Censorship, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This article examines new legislation, including the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act, signed into law in December 2016, targeting non-disparagement clauses in consumer contracts. Such “gag clauses” typically prohibit or punish the posting of negative reviews of businesses on websites, such as Yelp and TripAdvisor. This article asserts that state and federal statutes provide the best means, from a pro-free-expression perspective, of attacking such clauses, given the disturbingly real possibility that the First Amendment has no bearing on contractual obligations between private parties.

Filtering Fake News Through A Lens Of Supreme Court Observations And Adages, Clay Calvert, Austin Vining

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Essay analyzes multiple issues affecting fake news. It does so through a prism of seven observations by the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the First Amendment, free speech, and other matters. The Court's wisdom in these quotations provides propitious points of entree for exploring how to address and remedy problems many fear fake news causes. The Essay concludes that because fake news will never be eradicated from the metaphorical marketplace of ideas, greater effort must be spent making real news - fake news's constructive flipside - more appetizing to the public.

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court's 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here— items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of …

Legislating The First Amendment: A Trio Of Recommendations For Lawmakers Targeting Free Expression, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article offers three recommendations for lawmakers attempting to restrict expression that is presumptively protected by the First Amendment. The proposals include: (1) embracing a ''prism of protection" through which all potential laws affecting expression are filtered prior to drafting; (2) mandating inclusion of sunset clauses in all statutes that may detrimentally impact free expression; and (3) adopting a comprehensive legislative oversight and review process for determining if an expired statute should be renewed, revised or abandoned. Although far from creating what Dean Roscoe Pound more than 100 years ago called a "science of legislation, " the proposals here nonetheless …

Can The Undue-Burden Standard Add Clarity And Rigor To Intermediate Scrutiny In First Amendment Jurisprudence? A Proposal Cutting Across Constitutional Domains For Time, Place & Manner Regulations, Clay Calvert, Minch Minchin

UF Law Faculty Publications

When the government regulates the time, place, or manner of speech, it must satisfy intermediate scrutiny and prove that (1) it has a significant interest, (2) the regulation is narrowly tailored, and (3) ample alternative channels of expression remain open. This article advocates simplifying and improving this test in First Amendment jurisprudence by replacing the often-confused second and third prongs with the far less deferential and much more rigorous undue-burden test embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2016 in the abortion-regulation case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Incorporating the undue-burden standard maintains intermediate scrutiny’s balancing framework while …

The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …

Beyond Trademarks And Offense: Tam And The Justices’ Evolution On Free Speech, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

In Matal v. Tam , the Supreme Court threw out the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act, the federal trademark law, because trademarks are private speech and thus regulating them based on government determinations of offensiveness violates the First Amendment. The solid outcome here contrasts with the narrow, incremental results in some other recent First Amendment cases that reached the Court.

Fissures, Fractures & Doctrinal Drifts: Paying The Price In First Amendment Jurisprudence For A Half Decade Of Avoidance, Minimalism & Partisanship, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article comprehensively examines how the U.S. Supreme Court’s adherence to principles of constitutional avoidance and judicial minimalism, along with partisan rifts among the Justices, have detrimentally affected multiple First Amendment doctrines over the past five years. The doctrines analyzed here include true threats, broadcast indecency, offensive expression, government speech, and strict scrutiny, as well as the fundamental dichotomy between content-based and content-neutral regulations.

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 …

Globally Speaking - Honoring The Victims' Stories: Matsuda's Human Rights Praxis, Berta E. Hernández-Truyol

UF Law Faculty Publications

Globally speaking, international law and the vast majority of domestic legal systems strive to protect the right to freedom of expression. The United States’ First Amendment provides an early historical protection of speech—a safeguard now embraced around the world. The extent of this protection, however, varies among states.

The United States stands alone in excluding countervailing considerations of equality, dignitary, or privacy interests that would favor restrictions on speech. The gravamen of the argument supporting such American exceptionalism is that free expression is necessary in a democracy. Totalitarianism, the libertarian narrative goes, thrives on government control of information to the …

Incendiary Speech And Social Media, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Incidents illustrating the incendiary capacity of social media have rekindled concerns about the "mismatch" between existing doctrinal categories and new types of dangerous speech. This Essay examines two such incidents, one in which an offensive tweet and YouTube video led a hostile audience to riot and murder, and the other in which a blogger urged his nameless, faceless audience to murder federal judges. One incident resulted in liability for the speaker, even though no violence occurred; the other did not lead to liability for the speaker even though at least thirty people died as a result of his words. An …

Not A Free Press Court?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

The last decade has been tumultuous for print and broadcast media. Daily newspaper circulation continues to fall precipitously, magazines struggle to survive, and network television audiences keep shrinking. In the meanwhile, cable news is prospering, mobile devices are contributing to increased news consumption, and many new media outlets appear to be thriving. Despite the dynamism in the media industry, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has taken up relatively few First Amendment cases directly involving the media. The Court has addressed a number of important free speech cases since 2005, but thus far the only Roberts Court decisions …

Government Sponsored Social Media And Public Forum Doctrine Under The First Amendment: Perils And Pitfalls, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

The goal of this article is to provide guidance to lawyers trying to navigate the morass that is the U.S. Supreme Court’s public forum jurisprudence in order to advise government actors wishing to establish social media forums.