First Amendment Commons^™

Section 230 As Civil Rights Statute, Enrique Armijo

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Many of our most pressing discussions about justice, progress, and civil rights have moved online. Activists advocating for social change no longer need to be in the same physical space to connect with others who share their challenges and aspirations. But the convergence of mobility, connectivity, and technology is not the only reason why. Thanks to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act’s (“Section 230”) immunity for online platforms, websites, and their hosts, speakers can engage in speech about protest, equality, and dissent without fear of collateral censorship from governments, authorities, and others in power who hope to silence them. …

Hargis V. Bevin, Gabriella Castellano

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Robotic Speakers And Human Listeners, Helen Norton

Seattle University Law Review

This article discusses protected First Amendment speech and how this protection should be applied to robotic speech. Robotic speech is that created by automated means, currently “bots” but the producers of automated speech are evolving. The article further differentiates between rights of the producers of this speech and listeners or consumers of the speech, and the impact of First Amendment protections on each group.

Is The First Amendment Obsolete?, Tim Wu

Michigan Law Review

The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly different than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government.

Today, in the internet and social media age, it is no longer speech that is scarce—rather, it is the attention of listeners. And those who seek to control speech use new methods that rely on the weaponization …

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock V. Hermitage School District, Matthew Beatus

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing?: Jurgen Bϋssow’S Battle Against Hate-Speech On The Internet, Eric T. Eberwine

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.