First Amendment Commons^™

Disrupting The Narrative: Diving Deeper Into Section 230 Political Discourse, Koustubh “K.J.” Bagchi, Elizabeth Banker, Ife Ogunleye

Pepperdine Law Review

Online spaces have undoubtedly played a significant role in facilitating discourse and the exchange of information. With this increased discourse, however, digital platforms have also seen a rise in harmful or problematic content shared online––including health misinformation, hate speech, and child sex abuse material, among others. Many commentators have put the blame for this trend on Section 230, arguing that Section 230 has enabled the spread of harmful content and suggesting that Section 230 ought to be amended or replaced. This Essay, by contrast, argues that the current narrative about Section 230 gets it wrong. In reality, Section 230 has …

Nonprofits, Taxes, And Speech, Lloyd H. Mayer

Journal Articles

Federal tax law is of two minds when it comes to speech by nonprofits. The tax benefits provided to nonprofits are justified in significant part because they provide nonprofits great discretion in choosing the specific ends and means to pursue, thereby promoting diversity and pluralism. But current law withholds some of these tax benefits if a nonprofit engages in certain types of political speech. Legislators have also repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, sought to expand these political speech restrictions in various ways. And some commentators have proposed denying tax benefits to groups engaged in other types of disfavored speech, including hate speech …

Freedom Of Speech At Ursinus College, Benjamin Henwood

Business and Economics Summer Fellows

Freedom of speech is a hot topic issue on many college campuses across the United States. My research project’s goal is to find out how our community at Ursinus College feels about freedom of speech. My project is going to explore how well Ursinus holds itself to its standards of free and open inquiry and how the students on campus feel about free and open inquiry. In order to understand how the community feels about free speech on our campus, we borrowed a survey from the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education and distributed it to roughly half of the …

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …

How Journalists Think About The First Amendment Vis-À-Vis Their Coverage Of Hate Groups, Gregory Perreault, Jonathan Peters, Brett Johnson, Leslie Klein

Scholarly Works

This study, based on in-depth interviews with U.S.-based journalists (n = 18), explores the increasingly fraught circumstances of reporting on hate groups. We examine how journalists think about the First Amendment vis-à-vis their coverage of such groups. Through the lens of media ecology and First Amendment principles and theories, we argue ultimately that journalists who cover hate groups use the First Amendment to identify their place in the journalistic environment.

Stanley Fish, The First, And The Life Of The Law, Samuel A. Terilli, Jr.

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disentangling Disinformation: What Makes Regulating Disinformation So Difficult?, Jason Pielemeier

Utah Law Review

This Essay articulates some of the critical ways in which disinformation differs from other categories of harmful content and explores some of the early efforts by platforms and governments to address the issue. It begins by analyzing the semantics around disinformation, explaining how specific terminology can allude to distinct concerns. It then explores the similarities and differences between disinformation and related categories of harmful content, like hate speech and terrorist incitement, before examining some of the corporate and regulatory initiatives that have emerged. It concludes with some observations and cautionary notes for corporate and governmental policy makers as they consider …

Policing Hate Speech And Extremism: A Taxonomy Of Arguments In Opposition, Leonard M. Niehoff

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Hate speech and extremist association do real and substantial harm to individuals, groups, and our society as a whole. Our common sense, experience, and empathy for the targets of extremism tell us that our laws should do more to address this issue. Current reform efforts have therefore sought to revise our laws to do a better job at policing, prohibiting, and punishing hate speech and extremist association.

Efforts to do so, however, encounter numerous and substantial challenges. We can divide them into three general categories: definitional problems, operational problems, and conscientious problems. An informed understanding of these three categories of …

“It Ain’T So Much The Things We Don’T Know That Get Us In Trouble. It’S The Things We Know That Ain’T So”: The Dubious Intellectual Foundations Of The Claim That “Hate Speech” Causes Political Violence, Gordon Danning

Pepperdine Law Review

The United States is an outlier in its legal protection for what is commonly termed “hate speech.” Proponents of bringing American jurisprudence closer to the international norm often argue that hate speech causes violence, particularly political violence. However, such claims largely rest on assumptions which are inconsistent with social scientists’ understanding of the causes of political violence, including that ethnic identity and ideological salience are more often the result of violence than a cause thereof; that violence during conflict is generally unrelated to the conflict’s ostensible central cleavage; and that violence is generally instrumental and elite-driven, rather than spontaneous and …

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 …

Legal Vs. Non-Legal Responses To Hateful Expression, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

This chapter explains the understanding of all who seek to advance both free speech and equality anywhere in the world. It discusses supports the conclusions of many expert individuals and organizations around the world – that counterspeech and other non-censorial alternatives are much more likely than hate speech laws to prove effective in limiting hate speech and its possible harmful effects. Social scientists have confirmed that counterspeech by leaders in the pertinent community is especially persuasive in rebutting hateful speech and in countering its potential harmful effects. Speech that counters the potentially harmful impact of hate speech comprises a broad …

You Can’T Say That!: Public Forum Doctrine And Viewpoint Discrimination In The Social Media Era, Micah Telegen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The growing prevalence of privately-owned social media platforms is changing the way Americans and their governments communicate. This shift offers new opportunities, but also requires a reinterpretation of the First Amendment’s proscription of government limitations of speech. The public forum doctrine and its proscription of viewpoint discrimination seem particularly stretched by the digital revolution and the development of social media. In ongoing cases, litigants and courts have invoked the doctrine to limit the government’s ability to ‘block’ those who comment critically on government pages—much to the chagrin of those who note the private status of the companies hosting the pages …

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?: Censorship Of Hate Speech May Well Increase Violence, Gordon Danning

Nevada Law Journal Forum

From Charlottesville to college campuses, people with odious hate groups have risen in notoriety recently. Responses to those people and the groups to which they belong have ranged from efforts to keep them from speaking in person, to deleting their presence on the internet, to efforts to have them terminated from their jobs or evicted from their apartments, and even to physical assault by members of such groups as Antifa. Such efforts at censoring, ostracizing, and stigmatizing hate group members are generally justified by claims that such individuals are dangerous. It is true that some scholars have found an association …

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle Keats Citron

Notre Dame Law Review

Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a full-throated champion of First Amendment values. The dominant online platforms, however, have recently adopted speech policies and processes that depart from the U.S. model. In an agreement with the European Commission, the dominant tech companies have pledged to respond to reports of hate speech within twenty-four hours, a hasty process that may trade valuable expression for speedy results. Plans have been announced for an industry database that will allow the same companies to share hashed images of banned extremist content for review and removal elsewhere. These changes are less the result of …

Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle

Maine Law Review

The search for a commonly agreed upon international legal understanding of the meaning of free speech or freedom of expression, as an individual human right, was a major international preoccupation from the 1940s to the 1980s. During the Cold War it was, of course, also a highly ideological debate. There were three positions, broadly speaking: the Soviet Union and its allies, who had little enthusiasm for the idea at all; the United States, which believed in it—many thought—too much; and the rest, the other Western democracies and developing countries, who tried to hold the middle ground. These contrasting positions were …

Sex, Lies, And Ultrasound, B. Jessie Hill

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech At Home And Abroad, Sarah H. Cleveland

Faculty Scholarship

The United States’ best-known constitutional protection internationally is surely the First Amendment. Around the world, the United States is perceived as protecting freedom of expression and the press first and foremost, among all rights. And whether admired for its purity and idealism or dismissed as naïve and sui generis, the United States’ approach to free speech is globally examined, critiqued, and debated. It is the United States’ most prominent constitutional export, informing the drafting of foreign constitutions, statutes, and judicial interpretations, and undergirding the protection for freedom of expression in the international and regional human rights systems.

This chapter …

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a full-throated champion of First Amendment values. The dominant online platforms, however, have recently adopted speech policies and processes that depart from the U.S. model. In an agreement with the European Commission, tech companies have pledged to respond to reports of hate speech within twenty-four hours, a hasty process that may trade valuable expression for speedy results. Plans have been announced for an industry database that will allow the same companies to share hashed images of banned extremist content for review and removal elsewhere.

These changes are less the result of voluntary market …

Finding Freedom For The Thoughts We Hate, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously defended tolerance as an indispensable constitutional value. He wrote: “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Yet accepting that the Constitution protects the thought that we hate can be difficult, even during the best of times. And these are far from the best of times. Nuclear brinksmanship …

Hate Speech Debate Has Roots In Us History, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

No abstract provided.

This Is Why We Protect Hate Speech, Alan E. Garfield

Alan E Garfield

Hate Speech On Social Media, Amos N. Guiora, Elizabeth Park

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

This essay expounds on Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s recent book, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, Moral and Social Responsibility on the Free Highway, and advocates placing narrow limitations on hate speech posted to social media websites. The Internet is a limitless platform for information and data sharing. It is, in addition, however, a low-cost, high-speed dissemination mechanism that facilitates the spreading of hate speech including violent and virtual threats. Indictment and prosecution for social media posts that transgress from opinion to inciteful hate speech are appropriate in limited circumstances. This article uses various real-world examples to explore when limitations on Internet-based hate …

Trending Now: The Role Of Defamation Law In Remedying Harm From Social Media Backlash, Cory Batza

Pepperdine Law Review

Defamatory comments on social media have become commonplace. When the online community is outraged by some event, social media users often flood the Internet with hateful and false comments about the alleged perpetrator, feeling empowered by their numbers and anonymity. This wave of false and harmful information about an individual’s reputation has caused many individuals to lose their jobs and suffer severe emotional trauma. This Comment explores whether the target of social media backlash can bring a successful defamation claim against the users who have destroyed their reputations on and offline. Notably, one of the biggest hurdles these plaintiffs will …

Freedom Of Speech And The Criminal Law, Dan T. Coenen

Scholarly Works

Because the Free Speech Clause limits government power to enact penal statutes, it has a close relationship to American criminal law. This Article explores that relationship at a time when a fast-growing “decriminalization movement” has taken hold across the nation. At the heart of the Article is the idea that free speech law has developed in ways that have positioned the Supreme Court to use that law to impose significant new limits on the criminalization of speech. More particularly, this article claims that the Court has developed three distinct decision-making strategies for decriminalizing speech based on constitutional principles. The first …

Defining Hate Speech, Andrew Sellars

Faculty Scholarship

There is no shortage of opinions about what should be done about hate speech, but if there is one point of agreement, it is that the topic is ripe for rigorous study. But just what is hate speech, and how will we know it when we see it online? For all of the extensive literature about the causes, harms, and responses to hate speech, few scholars have endeavored to systematically define the term. Where other areas of content analysis have developed rich methodologies to account for influences like context or bias, the present scholarship around hate speech rarely extends beyond …

The Government Brand, Mary-Rose Papandrea

Northwestern University Law Review

In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Texas could deny the Sons of Confederate Veterans a specialty license plate because the public found the group’s Confederate flag logo offensive. The Court did not reach this conclusion because it deemed the Confederate flag to fall within a category of unprotected speech, such as true threats, incitement, or fighting words; because it revisited its determination in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul that restrictions on hate speech are unconstitutional; because travelers who see the license plates are a “captive audience”; or because …

The Unpunishable Immorality, Ramzi Nasser

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking The Context Of Hate Speech Regulation, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

In this essay I review Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses (Cambridge University Press 2012). As I show in the review, the Herz and Molnar volume advances our understanding of comparative hate speech regulation in three ways. First, the essays suggest that local context has a role to play in understanding, assessing, and applying hate speech regulations, even in an age when online hate speech is pressuring states and regions to reach common solutions to these problems. Second, the essays rebut the commonly held premise that the United States …

Harassing Speech In The Public Schools: The Validity Of Schools' Regulation Of Fighting Words And The Consequences If They Do Not, Adam A. Milani

Akron Law Review

What can - and should - schools do about the harassment which their students are suffering? While the issues of hateful and harassing speech and political correctness on college campuses have received a great deal of attention in both the mass media and legal journals, the very real problem of student-to-student harassment in grammar and high schools has only recently been given attention in either forum. More specifically, there has been little attention paid to the questions of whether (1) the First Amendment permits grammar and high schools to control harassing speech by students, (2) schools violate civil rights statutes …