First Amendment Commons^™

The Sickness Unto Death Of The First Amendment, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

The sickness unto death, in Søren Kierkegaard’s work of the same name, is the anxiety and despair an individual experiences in recognizing that the self is separated from what is collective, extrinsic, or transcendent. Something like this condition now afflicts the First Amendment. The sickness unto death of the First Amendment is that the spectacular success of free speech and religious freedom as American constitutional rights on premises of liberal, individual autonomy has been the very cause of mounting and powerful collective anxiety. The impressive growth of these rights has rendered them fragile, if not actually unsustainable, in their current …

Augmenting Our Reality: The (Un)Official Strategy Guide To Providing First Amendment Protection For Players And Designers Of Location-Based Augmented Reality Video Games, Colleen Signorelli

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Specifically, this Note will argue that the First Amendment applies to location-based augmented reality games in public forums, and, furthermore, the First Amendment protects designers and players of location-based augmented reality games in public forums. This Note will not discuss these location-based games within the context of privacy rights or trespassing, issues that have been written about elsewhere. Part I of this Note will explore the law regarding freedom of speech and freedom of assembly in public forums, and permissible regulations of speech and assembly, including time, place, and manner restrictions and prior restraints, such as permits. Part II …

Free Speech, Public Safety, & Controversial Speakers: Balancing Universities' Dual Roles After Charlottesville, Elisabeth E. Constantino

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note seeks to develop an approach to hateful and controversial speech that protects First Amendment values and students alike. Part I discusses the legal backdrop and First Amendment tradition that underlies a permissive view of hateful speech on university campuses. Part I also discusses the roots of time, place, and manner regulations and the public forum doctrine, both of which recent legislation invokes. Part II provides a timeline of events that have highlighted the tension between free speech and public safety on campuses. Part II also discusses the eruption of legislation that these events inspired. Finally, Part III …

Shut Up. You Don't Even Go Here.* An Examination Of First Amendment Rights For Noncitizens, Samantha Chasworth

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Section I of this Note provides background information about Pineda Cruz et al v. Thompson et al and explains the government’s argument in its Motion to Dismiss. Section II explains the First Amendment, demonstrating what it is and explaining its fundamental nature. Section III argues that noncitizens are entitled to First Amendment rights, presenting the non-speakerbased composition and character of the First Amendment. Next, this section demonstrates the many fundamental rights that noncitizens currently have in an effort to show the hole left open for the First Amendment. Next, this section describes the enormous consequences of not providing First …

Justice Jackson In The Jehovah's Witnesses' Cases, John Q. Barrett

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

I will address Justice Jackson and Jehovah’s Witnesses in four parts. First, I will begin with Robert Jackson himself, introducing the man who became a Supreme Court Justice, and who came to author Barnette and at least one other very notable opinion in a Jehovah’s Witness case. Second, I will turn to the Barnette case in its Supreme Court legal context, which turns out to be two Court terms, 1941–42 and 1942–43, of many Jehovah’s Witnesses cases. These cases produced a run of Court decisions that are a framework surrounding Barnette, and thus understanding them is important to …

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …