Law Commons^™

Closing The Barn Door After The Genie Is Out Of The Bag: Recognizing A "Futility Principle" In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article argues for a simple proposition: the First Amendment imposes a presumption against the suppression of speech when suppression would be futile. Suppression is futile when the speech is available to the same audience through some other medium or at some other place. The government can overcome this presumption of futility only when it asserts an important interest that is unrelated to the content of the speech in question, and only when the suppression directly advances that interest.

In Part I, the article explores the role that this unarticulated "futility principle" has played in Supreme Court and other decisions …

Liberating Commercial Speech: Product Labeling Controls And The First Amendment, Lars Noah, Barbara A. Noah

Faculty Scholarship

As federal regulators impose increasing limits on what manufacturers may say about their products, constitutional protections for commercial speech become ever more important. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court's most recent First Amendment decisions suggest meaningful regard for the value of advertising and labeling as types of protected expression. At the same time, however, federal lawmakers are imposing ever more onerous restrictions on promotional activities and product labeling. The Authors discuss federal law relating to regulation of product labeling.

Rhetoric, Evidence, And Bar Agency Restrictions On Speech By Attorneys, Lloyd B. Snyder

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

There are two problems with permitting litigation about attorney speech to proceed without requiring bar disciplinary agencies to present empirical data or other evidence to support claims that restrictions on attorney speech are necessary. First, the history of bar association restrictions on attorney speech should make us skeptical that the bar rules are based on lofty ideals about protection of the public. The restrictions began as rules promulgated by elite corporate lawyers whose effect was to limit the activities of their less affluent brethren who were representing criminal defendants and other impoverished clients. The purpose of the rules was to …