First Amendment Commons^™

Who Says My Halloween Costume Is Offensive?, Marysheila Mcdonald

Explorer Café

No abstract provided.

The Limits Of Child Pornography, Carissa Byrne Hessick

Indiana Law Journal

Although the First Amendment ordinarily protects the creation, distribution, and possession of visual images, the Supreme Court has declared that those protections do not apply to child pornography. But the Court has failed to clearly define child pornography as a category of speech. Providing a precise definition of the child pornography exception to the First Amendment has become increasingly important because recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the penalties associated with the creation, distribution, and possession of child pornography.

This Article proposes a clear definition of the child pornography exception. It argues that an image ought to fall …

Balancing The First Amendment And Child Protection Goals In Legal Approaches To Restricting Children's Access To Violent Video Games: A Comparison Of Germany And The United States, Laura Tate Kagel

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Omnipresent Student Speech And The Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker In The Digital Age, Watt L. Black Jr.

Watt Lesley Black Jr.

This paper focuses primarily on federal circuit level decisions regarding public school district's ability to discipline students who engage in electronic speech while off-campus and not involved in school activities. Particular attention is paid to the question of whether and how appeals courts have been willing to apply the "material and substantial disruption" standard from the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision to speech occurring off-campus. The paper, which is targeted toward both legal scholars and school administrators, draws together the common threads from the various circuits and weaves them into a set of guidelines for school administrators …

Homeschooling As A Constitutional Right: A Claim Under A Close Look At Meyer And Pierce And The Lochner-Based Assumptions They Made About State Regulatory Power, David M. Wagner

David N. Wagner

In 2012, a German family of would-be homeschoolers, the Romeikes, fled to the U.S. to escape fines and child removal for this practice, which has been illegal in Germany since 1938. The Sixth Circuit, in denying their asylum request, conspicuously did not slam the door on the possibility that if the Romeikes were U.S. citizens, they might have a right to homeschool. This article takes up that question, and argues that Meyer and Pierce, the classic cases constitutionalizing the right to use private schools, point beyond those holdings towards a right to homeschool; and that the permissible state regulations on …

An Imminent Substantial Disruption: Towards A Uniform Standard For Balancing The Rights Of Students To Speak And The Rights Of Administrators To Discipline., Allison G. Kort

Allison G Kort

ABSTRACT An Imminent Substantial Disruption: Toward a Uniform Standard for Balancing the Rights of Students to Speak and the Rights of Administrators to Discipline. By Allison Kort Twenty-five years before the Supreme Court’s landmark school speech decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 504 (1969), the Court cautioned against placing too much discretion in the hands of school boards. In Tinker, when students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court determined that student speech may not be censored when the record demonstrates no facts which would reasonably have led school authorities to forecast a …