First Amendment Commons^™

Fair Use Failing The First Amendment? How The Parody And Satire Dichotomy May Be Stunting Political Discourse, Megan L. Wheeler

IP Theory

The First Amendment, in certain circumstances, is used as a defense to “protect[] satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression.”2 When it comes to jokes, “[q]uestions . . . have arisen in case law [pertaining to satire typically] concerning libel, emotional distress and copyright infringement.”3 Further, in a right of publicity claim, “[t]he First Amendment clearly protects all but the most intrusive coverage of news, or details of a person’s private life, such as are reported in the tabloid press or talk shows.”4 This demonstrates that humor and satire have a close relationship with the First …

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

Privacy, Property, And Publicity, Mark A. Lemley

Michigan Law Review

Review of Jennifer E. Rothman's The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World.

Trending @ Rwu Law: Professor Niki Kuckes's Post: 'Disparaging' Trademarks Meet The First Amendment 02-07-2017, Niki Kuckes

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Can Dna Be Speech?, Jorge R. Roig

Jorge R Roig

The Rehnquist Court And The Groundwork For Greater First Amendment Scrutiny Of Intellectual Property, Mark P. Mckenna

Mark P. McKenna

This contribution to the Washington University School of Law conference on the Rehnquist Court and the First Amendment addresses the Rehnquist Court's view of the role of the First Amendment in intellectual property cases. It argues that, while the Rehnquist Court was not eager to find a conflict between intellectual property laws and the First Amendment, there is reason to believe that it set the stage for greater First Amendment scrutiny of intellectual property protections. At the very least, the Court left that road open to future courts, which might be inclined to view intellectual property more skeptically.

Copyright And The First Amendment: Freedom Or Monopoly Of Expression?, Henry S. Hoberman

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proving Fair Use: Burden Of Proof As Burden Of Speech, Ned Snow

Faculty Publications

Courts have created a burden of proof in copyright that chills protected speech. The doctrine of fair use purports to ensure that copyright law does not trample rights of speakers whose expression employs copyrighted material. Yet those speakers face a burden of proof that weighs heavily in the fair use analysis, where factual inquiries are often subjective and speculative. Failure to satisfy the burden means severe penalties, which prospect quickly chills the free exercise of speech that constitutes a fair use. The fair-use burden of proof is repugnant to the fair use purpose. Today, copyright holders are exploiting the burden …

The Rehnquist Court And The Groundwork For Greater First Amendment Scrutiny Of Intellectual Property, Mark P. Mckenna

Journal Articles

This contribution to the Washington University School of Law conference on the Rehnquist Court and the First Amendment addresses the Rehnquist Court's view of the role of the First Amendment in intellectual property cases. It argues that, while the Rehnquist Court was not eager to find a conflict between intellectual property laws and the First Amendment, there is reason to believe that it set the stage for greater First Amendment scrutiny of intellectual property protections. At the very least, the Court left that road open to future courts, which might be inclined to view intellectual property more skeptically.