Law Commons^™

Comment, Francesca Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Let's start with the antecedent question that both the theme of this conference and all three papers in this session present. That is, before we ask how law schools might better advance the freedom of expression on campus, and even before asking what role law schools play in protecting or suppressing free speech more generally, we must ask the first order question: whether freedom of expression at U.S. law schools is indeed imperiled?

There is an underlying assumption in all three papers that something is amiss, that things are not quite at their optimal, that improve- ment is needed. And …

Falsehoods, Foreign Interference, And Compelled Speech In Singapore, Kenny Chng

Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law

Online misinformation endangers the infrastructure of fact essential to public discourse and presents an even greater threat where it is being utilised as a weapon by hostile state actors. In recognition of these dangers, Singapore has implemented legal measures to combat online misinformation, enacting in quick succession the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) and the Foreign Interference (Countermeasures) Act (FICA). These statutes open up novel frontiers of development for Singapore's free speech jurisprudence. Indeed, these statutes confer upon government authorities the power to compel the authors of certain material to display notices stating that the material contains …

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …

Antimatters: The Curious Case Of Confederate Monuments, Jeremiah Chin

Articles

Confederate monuments sit at a crossroads of speech frameworks as contested government speech, as concrete edifices of hate speech, and as key protest sites. The interplay of state law and speech doctrines in states like Alabama and Florida has cemented monuments as physical representations of government speech that municipal governments cannot speak on. To understand the confounding ways that doctrinal principles take on inverse implications, this Article draws on the concept of antimatter in physics—matter that has the same mass and properties of ordinary matter but with the opposite charge—to analyze doctrinal intersections of constitutional law that are made to …

Universities Inadvertently Permit “Toxic” Environments: Free Speech And Private Institutions, Taylor Bernard

Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review Perspectives

The First Amendment is one of the most important amendments that protects democracy. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment protects pure speech (speaking and writings) and symbolic speech, which is nonverbal expression intended to communicate ideas. The Constitution protects “coarse expression as well as refined, and vulgarity no less than elegance” because “a …

States Have Long Tried To Ban Ideas From The Classroom: The Current Road Brings A Fresh Evil, Leonard Niehoff

Other Publications

Efforts by state and local officials to ban ideas and books from public school classrooms are nothing new. Recent attempts to do so, however, have a uniquely pernicious characteristic. The current wave of bans doesn’t just seek to censor thoughts or words; it seeks to censor identity.

Campbell V. Reisch: The Dangers Of The Campaign Loophole In Social Media Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark Bailey

Scholarly Works

Since 2016, social media blocking by government officials has been a lively battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. Government officials increasingly rely on social media to communicate with the public while ever greater numbers of private individuals are voicing their opinions and petitioning for change on government officials' interactive social media accounts. Perhaps not surprisingly, this has prompted many government officials to block those users whose comments they deem to be critical or offensive. But such speech regulation by a government actor introduces viewpoint discrimination—a cardinal sin under the First Amendment.

In 2019, three United States …

Disciplining Doctors: A Call For Caution When Responding To Physicians' Counter-Consensus Speech In The Time Of Covid-19, Timothy Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

The COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly every aspect of life in the United States, including most notably, work-life, home-life, and community-life. During the pandemic, the government took extraordinary steps to try and reduce the spread of the disease by closing businesses, mandating the wearing of masks, and requiring vaccines. Government officials repeatedly justified their actions by stating that they were "following the science." However not all members of the scientific/medical community agreed with these actions. Some of these counter-consensus opinions were labeled mis/dis/mal/information.

As the COVID-19 pandemic dragged on, calls to punish doctors for COVID-19 misinformation increased. Some doctors who claimed …

Political Advertising In Virtual Reality, Scott P. Bloomberg

Faculty Publications

This Article is about how biometric data collected through VR technologies will greatly exacerbate existing problems with political ad microtargeting. Commercially available VR devices can—and in some cases, must—be integrated with sensors that track users’ eyes, faces, hands, and bodies. Political campaigns will be able to leverage this data to target ads with extraordinary precision. Indeed, targeting ads with biometric data may well be the next step in the evolution of microtargeted political messaging—a practice that has contributed to a rise in disinformation, filter-bubbles, and privacy invasions. If this sounds like science fiction, it is closer than you may think. …

Nonprofits, Taxes, And Speech, Lloyd H. Mayer

Journal Articles

Federal tax law is of two minds when it comes to speech by nonprofits. The tax benefits provided to nonprofits are justified in significant part because they provide nonprofits great discretion in choosing the specific ends and means to pursue, thereby promoting diversity and pluralism. But current law withholds some of these tax benefits if a nonprofit engages in certain types of political speech. Legislators have also repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, sought to expand these political speech restrictions in various ways. And some commentators have proposed denying tax benefits to groups engaged in other types of disfavored speech, including hate speech …

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …