Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Constitutional Law (8)
- First Amendment (3)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (2)
- Administrative Law (1)
- Civil Law (1)
-
- Communications Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminology and Criminal Justice (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- International Humanitarian Law (1)
- International and Area Studies (1)
- Legal Studies (1)
- Legal Theory (1)
- Linguistics (1)
- Other International and Area Studies (1)
- Other Law (1)
- Other Legal Studies (1)
- Other Linguistics (1)
- Religion Law (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Institution
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief For The Respondants, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1498, 09-89 (U.S. Dec. 22, 2009), Neal K. Katyal
Brief For The Respondants, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1498, 09-89 (U.S. Dec. 22, 2009), Neal K. Katyal
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1298, 09-89 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2009), David Cole
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
On Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 09-89 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2009), David Cole
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Conditional Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Beyond Free Speech: Novel Approaches To Hate On The Internet In The United States, Jessica S. Henry
Beyond Free Speech: Novel Approaches To Hate On The Internet In The United States, Jessica S. Henry
Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works
Hate on the Internet presents a unique problem in the United States. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech, even that which is hateful and offensive. Although the First Amendment is not without limitation and, indeed, although there have been a small number of successful prosecutions of individuals who disseminated hate speech over the Internet, web-based hate continues to receive broad First Amendment protections. Some non-governmental organizations in the United States, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have adopted innovative approaches to hate on the Internet. For instance, the ADL tracks and monitors …
‘Right Of Selfishness’ Vis-À-Vis Media Pluralism In The Us And In Europe: The Crucial Role Of Broadcasting At The Verge Of Private Enterprise And Public Trusteeship, Niels Lutzhoeft
Cornell Law School Inter-University Graduate Student Conference Papers
Few areas of law raise the question as to the delimitation of the public vis-à-vis the private sphere as forcefully as broadcasting does. And few businesses display the dual nature inherent in nature radio and TV broadcasting: economic versus cultural good. In Continental Europe, until the 1980s, broadcasting was subject to State monopolies that ought to ensure media pluralism. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court, embracing a scarcity rationale, qualified the First Amendment in the realm of broadcasting primarily as a right of the listeners and viewers to receive a wide array of information and opinions. In Red Lion, the Court …
No Enclaves Of Totalitarianism: The Triumph And Unrealized Promise Of The Tinker Decision, Jamin B. Raskin
No Enclaves Of Totalitarianism: The Triumph And Unrealized Promise Of The Tinker Decision, Jamin B. Raskin
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District forty years ago did for the ideal of expressive freedom in America's public schools what Brown v. Board of Education did for the ideal of racial equality. It made a core value of the Bill of Rights spring to life for young people facing authoritarian treatment at the hands of adult officials running their school systems. By privileging the right of students to engage in passionate political communication over the school's interest in maintaining discipline or the community’s interest in maintaining pro-war consensus, the Tinker decision was …
Cross Burning A Hate Speech Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Wilson Huhn
Cross Burning A Hate Speech Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Wilson Huhn
Akron Law Faculty Publications
Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence. While a person may be removed from a classroom or fired from employment for engaging in ‘hate speech’, under the First Amendment a person may be charged with a crime only if their statements constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence. Moreover, even in cases where it is clear that a person is threatening violence or that violence is imminent, the person …
Words "Which By Their Very Utterance Inflict Injury": Evolving Treatment Of Inherently Dangerous Speech In Free Speech Law And Theory, Rodney A. Smolla
Words "Which By Their Very Utterance Inflict Injury": Evolving Treatment Of Inherently Dangerous Speech In Free Speech Law And Theory, Rodney A. Smolla
Scholarly Articles
Not available.
Privatizing And Publicizing Speech, Nelson Tebbe
Privatizing And Publicizing Speech, Nelson Tebbe
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
When and how should governments be permitted to use private-law mechanisms to manage their public-law obligations? This short piece poses that question in the context of Summum, which the Supreme Court decided earlier this year, and Buono, which it will hear in the fall. In both cases, the government manipulated formal property rules in order to fend off constitutional challenges. In Summum, the government took ownership of a religious symbol in the face of a free speech challenge, while in Buono it shed ownership of land containing another sectarian symbol in an effort to moot an Establishment Clause problem. Although …
Unshackling Speech (Book Review), David L. Lange
Unshackling Speech (Book Review), David L. Lange
Faculty Scholarship
Reviewing, Brian C. Anderson and Adam D. Thierer, A Manifesto for Media Freedom (2008))