First Amendment Commons^™

Explicit Lyrics: The First Amendment Free Speech Rulings That Have Protected Against Music Censorship In The United States, Eric T. Kasper

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

As noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989), calls for music censorship are at least as old as Plato’s Republic. Attempts to punish artists for their music continue across the globe to the present day. In the United States, these attempts have been thwarted by key Court precedents on incitement (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969), true threats (Watts v. United States, 1969), profanity (Cohen v. California, 1971), and obscenity (Miller v. California, 1973). None of these precedents dealt with music, but after Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. …

Tinkering With The Schoolhouse Gate: The Future Of Student Speech After Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L., Victoria R. Bonds

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

When the Supreme Court last created a rule about students’ First Amendment rights, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. Students’ use of social media and technology has radically changed since then, and it is time the First Amendment case law reflects that. With the transition to online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic and overall increased reliance on technology, students need clear answers about when school officials can punish them for their social media posts.

The Supreme Court had a chance to clarify First Amendment student speech law this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., but …

Twitter, Parody, And The First Amendment: A Contextual Approach To Twitter Parody Defamation, Emma Lux

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Twitter parody defamation cases raise novel questions about how to translate defamation law to Twitter’s interactive platform. What constitutes a “reasonable” reader on Twitter? What content is relevant to interpreting the meaning of a tweet from a parody account? The answers to these questions will have far-reaching effects for online speech. Parody authors are already vulnerable to defamation liability, particularly on Twitter where their statements often appear with very little context. Twitter parody accounts, which produce important political and social commentary, risk defamation lawsuits, as well as, in some states, criminal liability for online impersonation. This Note proposes a methodology …

When Sports Stand Against Human Rights: Regulating Restrictions On Athlete Speech In The Global Sports Arena, Faraz Shahlaei

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

Even after the International Olympic Committee’s quick and harsh response to the “black power salute” in the 1968 Olympic Games— positing that the apolitical Olympic Games were not a suitable venue for domestic political statements—athletes continued using their platform to protest human rights violations. Should such conduct be allowed? Are athletes entitled to display their political opinions on the field? Or should athletic organizations be allowed to regulate their athletes’ protests and political speech in the arena? On the one hand, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. On the other, sports have a long history of remaining apolitical—limiting …

The First Amendment And Content Restrictions In State Film Incentive Programs, Dr. Joel Timmer

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In recent years, many states have offered incentive programs to lure film production and its associated economic benefits—increased jobs, spending, and tourism—to their states. Several of these programs have restrictions that deny incentives based on a film’s content. For example, Texas denies film incentives to projects that have “inappropriate content” or portray “Texas or Texans in a negative way.” This article concludes that these restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. Two key considerations factor into this conclusion: First, in granting subsidies, the government may apply criteria that would be impermissible in a regulatory context. Second, the denial of a …

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …