First Amendment Commons^™

Volo Foundation Lecture: Science, Free Speech, And Public Choice, Bret Stephens

FIU Law Review

In an era where science, free speech, and public choice clash, the historical unity between these pillars, as envisioned by America's founding fathers, is obscured. Examining Thomas Jefferson's reverence for Bacon, Locke, and Newton, reveals a past where reason and freedom intertwined. However, contemporary challenges, epitomized by the pandemic response, illustrate a divergence. Amidst censorship and expert dominance, the vital role of public scrutiny emerges. Acknowledging the fallibility of experts and embracing free speech as essential for reasoned discourse becomes imperative. To restore the balance, humility from scientific institutions, a renewed appreciation for free speech, and public courage are necessary …

On Traditionalism In Free Speech Law, R. George Wright

Journal of Legislation

No abstract provided.

Advancing America’S Emblematic Right: Doctrinal Bases For The Fundamental Constitutional Right To Vote Per Se, Susan H. Bitensky

University of Miami Law Review

This Article identifies and examines the Supreme Court’s longstanding unintelligibility with respect to recognition of a fundamental right to vote per se under the Constitution. In a host of equal protection cases, the Court’s refusal to “say what the law is” in this regard has produced a chaotic jurisprudence on the status of the right. Because ours is a constitutional schema consisting of multiple types of rights to vote, the refusal manifests as judicial reliance on and acclamation of some unspecified right to vote. It is refusal by lack of clarity. The unsorted right has led some scholars to conclude …

The Big Chill: Are Public Participation Rights Being Slapp-Ed?, Rachel E. Deming

Pace Environmental Law Review

This article focuses on the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and addresses a confounding situation caused by Supreme Court precedents that give greater protection to persons who engage in illegal business practices than to citizens who petition their governments. This dichotomy is especially detrimental to environmental protection.

The crux of the conflict lies in which standard courts should use to determine whether the petitioning activity is protected: the subjective Free Speech standard grafted onto Petition Clause activities or the objective standard initially developed by the Supreme Court for petition activities in antitrust cases. The result …

Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Pepperdine Law Review

While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …

The Stolen Election Lie And The Freedom Of Speech, Wes Henricksen

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Respeaking The Bill Of Rights: A New Doctrine Of Incorporation, Kurt Lash

Indiana Law Journal

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights against the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment raises a host of textual, historical, and doctrinal difficulties. This is true even if (especially if) we accept the Fourteenth Amendment as having made the original Bill of Rights binding against the states. Does this mean we have two Bills of Rights, one applicable against the federal government with a “1791” meaning and a second applicable against the state governments with an “1868” meaning? Do 1791 understandings carry forward into the 1868 amendment? Or do 1868 understandings of the Bill of Rights carry backward …

Regulating Charitable Crowdfunding, Lloyd H. Mayer

Indiana Law Journal

Charitable crowdfunding is a global and rapidly growing new method for raising money to benefit charities and individuals in need. While mass fundraising has existed for hundreds of years, crowdfunding is distinguishable from those earlier efforts because of its low cost, speed of implementation, and broad reach. Reflecting these advantages, it now accounts annually for billions of dollars raised from tens of millions of donors through hundreds of internet platforms, including Charidy, Facebook, GoFundMe, and GlobalGiving. Although most charitable crowdfunding campaigns raise only modest amounts, on occasion a campaign attracts tens of millions of dollars in donations. However, charitable crowdfunding …

Testimony, Free Speech Under Attack: The Legal Assault On Environmental Activists And The First Amendment, Anita Ramasastry

Presentations

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professor Tobias B. Wolff As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents In U.S. Supreme Court Case 303 Creative Llc V. Elenis, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This amicus brief, filed in support of the Colorado anti-discrimination law in 303 Creative v. Elenis, is the product of about ten years of work on these First Amendment issues as a scholar and advocate. Its arguments rest on a core proposition: When a business sells goods and services in the public marketplace, it is not a street corner speaker engaging in a personal act of expression, it is a vendor engaged in commerce. Customers do not pay for the privilege of promoting a commercial vendor’s own personal message, they pay for goods and services chosen by them and …

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …

Sharpening The Focus Of Free Speech Law: The Crucial Role Of Government Intent, R. George Wright

Texas A&M Law Review

Contemporary free speech law is typically misfocused. This misfocus serves neither the purposes underlying the institution of free speech nor any broader social rights and interests in conflict with freedom of speech. As a general matter, the adjudication of free speech claims should properly focus, centrally, on the intent of the regulating government. More specifically, courts should focus crucially on whether the government has, in enacting or enforcing its speech regulation, intended to suppress or disadvantage a presumed or actual idea or its expression. This sharpened focus would allow the courts to responsibly address a surprisingly broad range of free …

Nobody's Business: A Novel Theory Of The Anonymous First Amendment, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

Namelessness is a double-edged sword. It can be a way of avoiding prejudice and focusing attention on one's ideas, but it can also be a license to defame and misinform. These points have been widely discussed. Still, the breadth of these discussions has left some of the depths unplumbed, because rarely is the question explicitly faced: what is the normative significance of namelessness itself, as opposed to its effects under different conditions? My answer is that anonymity is an evasion of responsibility for one's conduct. Persons should ordinarily be held responsible for what they do, but in some cases, where …

Protecting Women's Voices: Preventing Retaliatory Defamation Claims In The #Metoo Context, Nicole Ligon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

As part of a personal commitment to positively utilize my legal skills, I joined the Legal Network for Gender Equity, a group of attorneys who support individuals seeking to come forward about their experiences with sexual harassment and assault. Through this network, I regularly counsel women who want to share their stories but are concerned that by doing so, they may open themselves up to costly defamation suits from their aggressors. Their concerns are not so much rooted in any notion that their stories are or could actually be defamatory. Instead, these concerns often stem from a recognition that …

Centering Noncitizens’ Free Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

First Amendment law pays little attention to noncitizens’ free speech interests. Perhaps noncitizens simply enjoy the same First Amendment rights as citizens. However, ambivalent and sometimes hostile Supreme Court precedents create serious cause for concern. This Essay advocates moving noncitizens’ free speech from the far periphery to the center of First Amendment law. Professor Magarian posits that noncitizens epitomize a condition of speech inequality, in which social conditions and legal doctrines combine to create distinctive, unwarranted barriers to full participation in public discourse. First Amendment law can ameliorate speech inequality by promoting an ethos of free speech obligation, amplifying the …

Absolute Publishing Power And Bulletproof Immunity: How Section 230 Shields Internet Service Providers From Liability And Makes It Impossible To Protect Your Reputation Online, Victoria Anderson

Seattle University Law Review SUpra

No abstract provided.

Is Free Speech An Academic Value? Is Academic Freedom A Constitutional Value?, Daniel Gordon

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Kent State And The Failure Of First Amendment Law, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first free speech case 100 years ago, two very different eras have defined First Amendment law. For a half century, before 1970, the Supreme Court focused on protecting the expressive freedom of political dissidents and social reformers. In 1970, amid protests against the Vietnam War, the Ohio National Guard senselessly gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Kent State massacre exposed the fragility in our country of political protest, free speech, and democracy itself. That atrocity should have inspired First Amendment law to affirm and enhance its protection of dissenters and …

How Cheap Speech Underserves And Overheats Democracy, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

A quarter century ago, Eugene Volokh’s article Cheap Speech and What It Will Do foretold a new regime of technologically driven “cheap speech” that would fundamentally change how people communicated with one another and navigated the information ecosystem. Professor Volokh’s vision was mainly descriptive, and his normative assessment of cheap speech sounded some circumspect notes of warning. Fundamentally, though, he painted an optimistic picture. In particular, he made the important claim that emerging technologies would democratize and diversify our society by giving many more speakers access to the tools of mass communication and audiences access to many more ideas.

The Legal Landscape For Frontline Student Journalists, Jonathan Peters

Scholarly Works

They have exposed campus outbreaks and questioned reopening plans. They have documented social-distancing violations at fraternity and sorority houses. They have tracked and explained fast-breaking changes to instructional modes and commencement events. They have demanded transparency from school administrators. And through it all they have boldly told the story of the human experience.

Famously, at the University of North Carolina, the Daily Tar Heel published a biting editorial under the headline “UNC has a clusterfuck on its hands,” after virus clusters were identified in campus housing. And the day that Notre Dame announced it would move only temporarily …

No Safe Spaces: A Distorted Image Of A Clear Problem, Michael Conklin

Pepperdine Law Review

This is a critical analysis of the documentary No Safe Spaces. The movie features comedian Adam Carolla and conservative talk show host Dennis Prager. Depending on the source, the movie is either the most necessary and prescient documentary ever or the most harmful. Unfortunately, the polarizing nature of the reviews largely fall along partisan political lines, with conservatives praising the movie and liberals criticizing it. This partisan result could have likely been minimized if the movie communicated a more bipartisan tone. To further complicate things, the movie does not provide a clear thesis of what it is trying to promote. …

Policing The Wombs Of The World's Women: The Mexico City Policy, Samantha Lalisan

Indiana Law Journal

This Comment argues that the Policy should be repealed because it undermines

firmly held First Amendment values and would be considered unconstitutional if

applied to domestic nongovernmental organizations (DNGOs). It proceeds in four

parts. Part I describes the inception of the Policy and contextualizes it among other

antiabortion policies that resulted as a backlash to the U.S. Supreme Court’s

landmark decision in Roe v. Wade. Part II explains the Policy’s actual effect on

FNGOs, particularly focusing on organizations based in Nepal and Peru, and argues

that the Policy undermines democratic processes abroad and fails to achieve its stated

objective: reducing …

Review Law: New York Defamation Applied To Online Consumer Reviews, Ian Lewis-Slammon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In early July 2017, Michelle Levine booked her first and only appointment with gynecologist Dr. Joon Song for an annual exam. Ms. Levine had a dissatisfying experience with the office. She claims that Dr. Song’s office did not follow up with her for almost a month, and that when she called to ask about the results of a blood test, Dr. Song’s staff falsely informed her that she tested positive for herpes. To top it off, Ms. Levine alleges that the office overcharged her. Following this experience, Ms. Levine did what many others do when dissatisfied with a product …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

Free Speech And Off-Label Rights, Amy J. Sepinwall

Georgia Law Review

When a litigant invokes a constitutional right to
protect interests different from the ones underpinning
the right, he engages in what this Article calls an
off-label rights exercise. The Free Speech Clause has
recently become an especially prominent, and troubling,
site of off-label rights exercises. Two of the most
prominent cases in the Supreme Court’s last term
involved litigants who invoked their constitutional
rights to free speech to protect interests unrelated to
speech or expression. In Janus v. American Federation
of State, County, & Municipal Employees, a state
employee argued that forcing him to pay for the union’s
bargaining activities …

Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

This Article explores the growing divide between the Roberts Court’s treatment of the free speech rights of wealthy individuals and corporations in campaign finance cases as compared to its treatment of the rights of public-sector labor unions and their members. First, it highlights some internal contradictions in the Janus Court’s analysis. Then, it discusses the growing—yet mostly ignored—divergence in the Court’s treatment of corporate and labor speakers with respect to the use of market influence to achieve political influence.

The Article has two Parts. In Part I, I explain how the Court reached its decision in Janus before critiquing the …

Trade Secrets And The Right To Information: A Comparative Analysis Of E.U. And U.S. Approaches To Freedom Of Expression And Whistleblowing, Sharon Sandeen, Ulla-Maija Mylly

Faculty Scholarship

Both the EU Trade Secrets Directive and US trade secret law seek to balance the protection of trade secrets against other values, including freedom of expression, but the EU Trade Secret Directive is more explicit about the need to do so. This article examines EU and US trade secret law through the right to information, a recognized human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and implementing laws and conventions. In particular, it discusses how principles of freedom of expression and whistleblowing should apply in the trade secret context in the EU and U.S.

Taming Uncivil Discourse, Gregory P. Magarian, James L. Gibson, Lee Epstein

Scholarship@WashULaw

In an era of increasingly intense populist politics, a variety of issues of intergroup prejudice, discrimination, and conflict have moved center stage in American politics. Among these is “political correctness” and, in particular, what constitutes a legitimate discourse of political conflict and opposition. Yet the meaning of legitimate discourse is being turned on its head as some disparaged groups seek to reclaim, or re-appropriate, the slurs directed against them. Using a Supreme Court decision about whether “The Slants” – a band named after a traditional slur against Asians – can trademark its name, we test several hypotheses about re-appropriation processes, …

Conflicting Reports: When Gun Rights Threaten Free Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article catalogs and analyzes collisions between free speech and gun rights. The most important and hotly debated of those collisions is the clash between the First Amendment rights to assemble and speak in public political protests and the asserted Second Amendment right to carry firearms openly in public places. Beyond protests, public university students’ First Amendment rights to speak and learn clash with the asserted Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons on university campuses; First Amendment interests in robust political deliberation clash with Second Amendment interests in promoting and securing the right to keep and bear arms; and …

Memorializing The Right To Free Speech: Hess V. Indiana And The Iu Bicentennial, Ashley A. Ahlbrand

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.