Law Commons^™

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …

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 …