First Amendment Commons^™

How Supreme A Court?, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Facebook is planning an independent appeals process for content moderation decisions. But how much power will it have?

How To Make Facebook's 'Supreme Court' Work, Kate Klonick, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

The idea of a body that will decide what kind of content is allowed on the site is promising — but only if it’s done right.

Speech V. Speakers, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Twitter's new rules about extremist speech blur the lines between people and words.

Talk Isn't Cheap: Protecting Freedom Of Speech In Light Of Georgia's Anti-Boycott Legislation, Maria Kachniarz

Georgia Law Review

Historically,political boycotts have occupied a central
place in American tradition, going as far back as the
Founding. However, the years of 2016 and 2017 have
marked a sudden influx of state anti-boycott legislation.
Georgia was no exception, passing a statute in 2016
prohibiting those who boycott Israel from contracting
with the state. This statue violates the FirstAmendment
guaranteesof freedom of speech. First, boycotts of Israel,
or BDS as they are collectively called, are protected
political speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
protected politically motivated boycotts, despite their
detrimental economic effects. Further, Georgia's anti-
boycott legislation impermissibly stifles that protected
speech …

Favoring The Press, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

In the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court caught the nation’s attention by declaring that corporations have a First Amendment right to independently spend unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns. The Court rested its 5-4 decision in large part on a concept of speaker-based discrimination. In the Court’s words, “the Government may commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers.”

To drive home its point that speaker-based distinctions are inherently problematic, the Court focused on one type of speaker distinction — the treatment of news media corporations. …

Free Speech And Generally Applicable Laws: A New Doctrinal Synthesis, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

A longstanding mystery of constitutional law concerns how the Free Speech Clause interacts with “generally applicable” legal restrictions. This Article develops a new conceptual framework for working through this puzzle. It does so by extracting from prior Supreme Court rulings an approach that divides these restrictions into three separate categories, each of which (at least presumptively) brings into play a different level of judicial scrutiny. An example of the first and most closely scrutinized category of generally applicable laws—that is, laws that place a “direct in effect” burden on speech—is provided by breach-of-the-peace statutes. These laws are generally applicable because …

Suing The President For First Amendment Violations, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

On any given day, it seems, President Donald Trump can be found attacking, threatening, or punishing the press and other individuals whose speech he dislikes. His actions, moreover, inevitably raise the question: Do any of these individuals or organizations (or any future ones) have a viable claim against the President for violating their First Amendment rights?

One might think that the ability to sue the President for violation of the First Amendment would be relatively settled. The answer, however, is not quite that straightforward. Due to several unique qualities about the First Amendment and the presidency, it is not entirely …

Presidential Attacks On The Press, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

President Donald Trump’s habit of hurling invectives at the press is disturbing. It undermines the work of the press and breaks long-standing norms that presidents show respect for the role of the Fourth Estate. But insults alone rarely raise First Amendment issues. Presidents have long used the bully pulpit to respond to or criticize news reports. Even Trump’s near daily verbal assaults on reporters and news organizations can be considered part of our country’s “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open” marketplace of ideas. Presidents have opinions too, and journalists should be able to handle his rants.

Yet there are also times when …

The First Amendment Case Against Partisan Gerrymandering, Emmet J. Bondurant Ii, Ben W. Thorpe

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court recognizes that "[p]artisan
gerrymanders... [are incompatible] with democratic
principles."I This makes good sense. The fundamental
objective of redistrictingis to "establish 'fairand effective
representation for all citizens. '2 And partisan
gerrymandering-whichthe Supreme Court defines as
"drawing... district lines to subordinate adherents of
one political party and entrench a rival party in
power'--runs counter to that fundamental objective.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has yet to invalidate
a redistricting plan solely as an unconstitutional
partisan gerrymander. This Symposium issue of the
Georgia Law Review, however, comes at a crucial
moment in the Court's treatment of that question. A case
now …