Law Commons^™

How The Courts, Along With Public Dissatisfaction With The Status Quo, Ironically Aided In The Creation Of New Hollywood, Which Promoted Films Of Lawlessness, Disorder And Instability, Sam A. Blaustein

Sam A Blaustein

The period known as New Hollywood in American film was brought about by several seminal American legal decisions coupled with a growing dissatisfaction with the status quo. A series of First Amendment cases, along with the 1948 Paramount decision, forced Hollywood to produce graphic and existential films that showcased in unprecedented style the issues faced by the emerging disaffected youth generation.

Blood Libel: Radical Islam’S Conscription Of The Law Of Defamation Into A Legal Jihad Against The West—And How To Stop It, Robert A. Pate

Robert A Pate

On May 19th, 2009, a panel of distinguished legal professionals assembled in Washington, D.C. at a conference, entitled Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam, to discuss radical Islam’s exploitation of Western libel laws to silence authors and journalists who seek to expose terror-financing networks and criticize radical Islam. The debate also embodied a cresting wave of public concern about the surprising ways Western laws enable this assault.This paper seeks to call attention to two critical mistakes, which were perpetuated by panelists at the conference and which are consistently present in current libel lawfare scholarship. Foremost, no one has yet …

A Free Speech Right To Impugn Judicial Integrity In Court Proceedings, Margaret C. Tarkington

Margaret C Tarkington

Throughout the United States, state and federal courts discipline and sanction attorneys who make disparaging remarks about the judiciary and thereby impugn judicial integrity. In so doing, courts have almost universally rejected the constitutional standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan for punishing speech regarding government officials. While courts have imposed severe sanctions regardless of the forum where the speech has occurred, many of the cases involve speech made by attorneys in court proceedings. The existing scholarly literature generally supports the denial of First Amendment protection in such cases, indicating that attorney speech when made in court proceedings is …

This Lemon Comes As A Lemon. The Lemon Test And The Pursuit Of A Statute’S Secular Purpose., Josh Blackman

Josh Blackman

Lemon is a curious fruit. The Lemon Test, derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman, is a three-pronged test to determine whether a government action violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This article will focus on the first prong of the Lemon Test, which queries whether a statute has a “secular purpose.” While many other articles have focused on the secular aspect of this prong, few have considered what exactly purpose means. Before piercing the citric skin of the purpose prong of the Lemon test, I consider intentionalism and purposivism as jurisprudential schools of thought. What is the purpose behind …

Licensing Facially Religious Government Speech: Summum's Impact On The Free Speech And Establishment Clauses, Scott W. Gaylord

Scott W. Gaylord

LICENSING FACIALLY RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT SPEECH: SUMMUM’S IMPACT ON THE FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES

Abstract

Scott W. Gaylord

It is the rare case that is decided solely on Free Speech grounds yet directly impacts the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is such a case. Although all nine Justices concurred in the judgment—that a privately donated monument in a public park is a form of “government speech” that is not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause—the case spawned five different opinions as the Justices attempted to explain the proper scope of the Court’s decision …

Integrating The Right Of Publicity With First Amendment And Copyright Preemption Analysis, Thomas F. Cotter

Thomas F. Cotter

Many states confer upon natural persons a “right of publicity” that renders unlawful the unauthorized use of a person’s name or other indicia of identity for purposes of trade. Efforts to reconcile publicity rights with the First Amendment and with principles of copyright preemption, however, have differed radically from one state or circuit to another, as well as within the scholarly community. In this Article, we present a comprehensive framework for integrating both First Amendment and copyright preemption principles into standard publicity analysis. Our framework eliminates much of the incoherence found in contemporary right of publicity case law by adopting …

Invoking And Avoiding The First Amendment: How Internet Service Providers Leverage Their Status As Both Content Creators And Neutral Conduits, Rob M. Frieden

Rob Frieden

Much of the policy debate and scholarly literature on network neutrality has addressed whether the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has statutory authority to require Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Such analysis largely focuses on questions about jurisdiction, the scope of lawful regulation, and the balance of power between stakeholders, generally adverse to government oversight, and government agencies, apparently willing to overcome the same inclination. The public policy debate primarily considers micro-level issues, without much consideration of broader concerns such as First Amendment values. While professing to support marketplace resource allocation and a regulation-free Internet, the …

Do Not Knock? Lovell To Watchtower And Back Again, Geoffrey D. Korff

Geoffrey D Korff

This article looks at the commercial speech doctrine through the lens of a recent development in how the doctrine is being applied to organizations that canvas neighborhoods to speak on behalf of political, charitable, or religious organizations. The article also traces the history of the commercial speech doctrine, up through the present era.

Several municipalities, most of which are located in Ohio, have taken a novel approach to preventing this type of canvassing. They have enacted a version of the federal "Do-Not-Call" list, which applies to canvassers. Current rulings from the Supreme Court do not clarify how this dilemma will …

Invoking And Avoiding The First Amendment: How Internet Service Providers Leverage Their Status As Both Content Creators And Neutral Conduits, Rob M. Frieden

Rob Frieden

Much of the policy debate and scholarly literature on network neutrality has addressed whether the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) has statutory authority to require Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”) to operate in a nondiscriminatory manner. Such analysis largely focuses on questions about jurisdiction, the scope of lawful regulation, and the balance of power between stakeholders, generally adverse to government oversight, and government agencies, apparently willing to overcome the same inclination. The public policy debate primarily considers micro-level issues, without much consideration of broader concerns such as First Amendment values. While professing to support marketplace resource allocation and a regulation-free Internet, the …

Hate Speech And Government Speech, Charlotte H. Taylor

Charlotte H. Taylor

Hate Speech and Government Speech

After a spate of hate speech incidents involving nooses provoked outcry in 2007, the immediate response was regulation. A number of states passed laws proscribing the placing of a noose on private property with the intent to intimidate. This response reanimates the familiar debate between those who seek to ban hate speech—the “anti-subordination camp”—and those who oppose such prohibitions on speech—the “free speech camp.” At loggerheads since the movement to institute anti-hate speech laws first gathered momentum in the late 1980s, these two camps fundamentally disagree over how to reconcile the constitutional value of equality …

Nobody's Fools: The Rational Audience As First Amendment Ideal, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Assumptions about audiences shape the outcomes of First Amendment cases. Yet the Supreme Court rarely specifies what its assumptions about audiences are, much less attempts to justify them. Drawing on literary theory, this Article identifies and defends two critical assumptions that emerge from First Amendment cases involving so-called “core” speech. The first is that audiences are capable of rationally assessing the truth, quality, and credibility of core speech. The second is that more speech is generally preferable to less. These assumptions, which I refer to collectively as the rational audience model, lie at the heart of the “marketplace of ideas” …

Identifying Government Speech, Andy G. Olree

Andy G Olree

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to mean that when the government distributes money or other resources to private speakers, it generally may not discriminate among speakers based on viewpoint. The government is, however, allowed to express its own viewpoint, even if it enlists the aid of private parties to get the message out, as long as the communication does not violate some separate legal restriction, such as the Establishment Clause. Together, these understandings form the core of what has become known as the government speech doctrine. This doctrine signals that distinguishing between …

Jon & Kate Plus The State: Why Congress Should Protect Children In Reality Programming, Dayna B. Royal

Dayna B. Royal

As "reality" programming continues to increase in popularity, so too does the number of children living out their young lives in front of the camera. Yet the current legal regime is inadequate to protect these children, whose parents have betrayed their best interests for fame and fortune. This article argues that Congress should enact a statute providing a regulatory sliding scale based on age that would largely prohibit children from participating in reality programming. A federal statute would bring clarity to this unsettled area of the law while ensuring that parents and programming executives cannot skirt individual state laws and …

Wild-West Cowboys Versus Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys: Some Problems In Comparative Approaches To Extreme Speech, Eric Heinze

Prof. Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London

All European states ban some form of hate speech. US law precludes such bans. In view of the political and symbolic importance of free speech, it becomes tempting to assume that trans-Atlantic differences towards hate speech reflect deeper cultural divisions.

However, we must pay attention to comparative methodology before drawing ambitious conclusions about cross-cultural social and political differences that derive solely from differences in formal, black-letter norms. In this volume, Robert Post claims that formal, constitutional requirements of content-neutral regulation reflect a freer public sphere in the US, in contrast to the European public sphere.

Yet a legal-realist approach casts …

Culture, Religion, And Indigenous People, David S. Bogen, Leslie F. Goldstein

David S. Bogen

The Constitution treats culture, religion, and government as separate concepts. Different clauses of the First Amendment protect culture and religion from government. For several decades, the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment as offering religion greater protection against interference than was offered to culture, but the Supreme Court largely dissolved these constitutional differences when confronted with issues posed by the religious practices of Native Americans. With some indigenous Americans, the lines between culture, religion, and even government blur – challenging the Supreme Court’s assumptions about the Constitution. The uniqueness of the claims of Native Americans pushed …

Cross Burning A Hate Speech Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Wilson Huhn

Wilson R. Huhn

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 …