Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland
Pepperdine Law Review
While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …
Compelled Speech And The Irrelevance Of Controversy, Seana Valentine Shiffrin
Compelled Speech And The Irrelevance Of Controversy, Seana Valentine Shiffrin
Pepperdine Law Review
NIFLA v. Becerra stealthily introduced a new First Amendment test for compelled speech that has injected chaos into the law of compelled disclosures. NIFLA reinterpreted the requirement that compelled disclosures contain only “purely factual and uncontroversial information” in a way that imbued independent force into the “uncontroversial” component of that test. Yet, the Court failed to supply criteria for what sort of purely factual information would fail to qualify as “uncontroversial information” and identified no important free speech concerns that this new prong protects. This Article distinguishes seven different interpretations of “uncontroversial information.” It then assesses them to ascertain whether …
Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney
Elonis V. United States: Why The Supreme Court Punted On Free Speech, David Barney
Pepperdine Law Review
In Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (2015), the Supreme Court had a chance to interpret the boundaries of a federal statute forbidding threats transmitted in interstate or foreign commerce and to consider the constitutional implications of regulating such threats. In its statutory analysis, the Court hesitated to declare how the law should be applied, and instead, only provided guidance as to how it should not be. It likewise refrained from any further analysis on constitutional grounds entirely. This contest winning student case note explores the opinion in depth and comments on its potential implications.