First Amendment Commons^™

An Imminent Substantial Disruption: Towards A Uniform Standard For Balancing The Rights Of Students To Speak And The Rights Of Administrators To Discipline., Allison G. Kort

Allison G Kort

ABSTRACT

An Imminent Substantial Disruption: Toward a Uniform Standard for Balancing the Rights of Students to Speak and the Rights of Administrators to Discipline.

By Allison Kort

Twenty-five years before the Supreme Court’s landmark school speech decision in Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 504 (1969), the Court cautioned against placing too much discretion in the hands of school boards. In Tinker, when students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court determined that student speech may not be censored when the record demonstrates no facts which would reasonably have led school authorities to ...

When Free Exercise Is A Burden: Protecting "Third Parties" In Religious Accommodation Law, Kara Loewentheil

Kara Loewentheil

During the 2014 Supreme Court term the Court will consider two challenges to the contraceptive coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act. These cases have attracted enormous attention, and have brought a new urgency to the principle that requests for religious accommodations should be weighed against any burdens such accommodations would impose on "third parties." To date, however, neither courts nor scholars have provided a consistent or principled way of thinking through how to evaluate such burdens and how to weigh them against free exercise rights. This Article takes up that challenge, using the example of the contraceptive coverage cases ...

When Art Becomes Free: On Artistic In-Expression & Personal Convictions, Amir H. Khoury

Amir Khoury

In this paper I argue that just as there are moral rights in copyright law, which secure attribution and integrity, so too, there should be 'inverse' moral rights that can protect artists from being impelled or compelled to create in the first place. This research comes against the backdrop of one of the most contentious issues in the Western world today, that pertaining to same-sex marriage. But the discussion applies to all other fields where creativity finds itself in a battle over personal convictions. In my view, the inverse moral rights construct is the true reflection of the extent of ...

Regulating Mass Surveillance As Privacy Pollution: Learning From Environmental Impact Statements, A. Michael Froomkin

A. Michael Froomkin

US law has remarkably little to say about mass surveillance in public, a failure which has allowed the surveillance to grow at an alarming rate – a rate that is only set to increase. This article proposes ‘Privacy Impact Notices’ (PINs) — modeled on Environmental Impact Statements — as an initial solution to this problem.

Data collection in public (and in the home via public spaces) resembles an externality imposed on the person whose privacy is reduced involuntarily; it can also be seen as a market failure caused by an information asymmetry. Current doctrinal legal tools available to respond to the deployment of ...

Omnipresent Student Speech And The Schoolhouse Gate: Interpreting Tinker In The Digital Age, Watt L. Black Jr.

Watt L. Black Jr.

This paper focuses primarily on federal circuit level decisions regarding public school district's ability to discipline students who engage in electronic speech while off-campus and not involved in school activities. Particular attention is paid to the question of whether and how appeals courts have been willing to apply the "material and substantial disruption" standard from the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines decision to speech occurring off-campus. The paper, which is targeted toward both legal scholars and school administrators, draws together the common threads from the various circuits and weaves them into a set of guidelines for ...

Back To The Future: The Constitution Requires Reasonableness And Particularity—Introducing The “Seize But Don’T Search” Doctrine, Adam Lamparello, Charles E. Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Issuing one-hundred or fewer opinions per year, the United States Supreme Court cannot keep pace with opinions that match technological advancement. As a result, in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the Court needs to announce a broader principle that protects privacy in the digital age. That principle, what we call “seize but don’t search,” recognizes that the constitutional touchstone for all searches is reasonableness.

When do present-day circumstances—the evolution in the Government’s surveillance capabilities, citizens’ phone habits, and the relationship between the NSA and telecom companies—become so thoroughly unlike those considered by the ...

Homeschooling As A Constitutional Right: A Claim Under A Close Look At Meyer And Pierce And The Lochner-Based Assumptions They Made About State Regulatory Power, David M. Wagner

David N. Wagner

In 2012, a German family of would-be homeschoolers, the Romeikes, fled to the U.S. to escape fines and child removal for this practice, which has been illegal in Germany since 1938. The Sixth Circuit, in denying their asylum request, conspicuously did not slam the door on the possibility that if the Romeikes were U.S. citizens, they might have a right to homeschool. This article takes up that question, and argues that Meyer and Pierce, the classic cases constitutionalizing the right to use private schools, point beyond those holdings towards a right to homeschool; and that the permissible state ...

The Beijing Treaty On Free Expression: How Stopping Digital Piracy May Cost The World Free Expression, Michael A. Shinall

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

The Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances grants, for the first time, international rights to performers to protect their work in an audiovisual medium. This is a step forward in protecting audiovisual media from international piracy or infringement, but comes at a cost. While performers’ economic rights are kept in check by fair use defenses (favored uses designed to promote the creation of new works) performers’ moral rights from the Beijing Treaty contain no counterbalancing defense. This Comment argues that without this counterbalancing defense, performers may assert these moral rights against other artists unchecked, consequently chilling the free expression that copyright ...

Meaningful Journalism Or "Infotainment"? The Failure To Define The Public Interest In Axel Springer Ag V. Germany, Kathryn Manza

Boston College International and Comparative Law Review

Although American courts provide wide discretion for freedom of the press, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ensures that the right to privacy enjoys equal footing with freedom of expression in Europe. When navigating the grey areas between these two frequently opposing rights, the European Court of Human Rights allows private information about a public figure to be published only to the extent the information contributes to the public interest. In Axel Springer AG v. Germany, the court missed a valuable opportunity to provide a clear standard for what the public interest encompasses. Although the ...

Cross, Crucifix, Culture: An Approach To The Constitutional Meaning Of Confessional Symbols, Frederick Mark Gedicks, Pasquale Annicchino

Frederick Mark Gedicks

In the United States and Europe the constitutionality of government displays of confessional symbols depends on whether the symbols also have nonconfessional secular meaning (in the U.S.) or whether the confessional meaning is somehow absent (in Europe). Yet both the United States Supreme Court (USSCt) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) lack a workable approach to determining whether secular meaning is present or confessional meaning absent.

The problem is that the government can nearly always articulate a possible secular meaning for the confessional symbols that it uses, or argue that the confessional meaning is passive and ...

The Worst Test Of Truth: The "Marketplace Of Ideas" As Faulty Metaphor, Thomas W. Joo

Thomas W Joo

In his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes proclaimed that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” This Article critiques the basic argument against speech regulation that has developed from the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor: that speech should be “free” because markets are “free,” and because free markets produce “truth.” These assertions about markets are taken for granted, but they portray markets and market regulation inaccurately; thus economic markets provide a poor analogy for the deregulation of speech.

First Amendment jurisprudence invokes the ...

Does “The Freedom Of The Press” Include A Right To Anonymity? The Original Meaning, Robert G. Natelson

Robert G. Natelson

This Article examines relevant evidence to determine whether, as some have argued, the original legal force of the First Amendment’s “freedom of the press” included a per se right to anonymous authorship. The Article concludes that, except in cases in which freedom of the press had been abused, it did. Thus, from an originalist point of view, Supreme Court cases such as Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which upheld statutes requiring disclosure of donors to political advertising, were erroneously decided.

A New First Amendment Goal Line Defense – Stopping The Right Of Publicity Offense, Mark A. Conrad

Mark A. Conrad

The use of images with the recognizable features of former NCAA student-athletes by a digital video firm has resulted in two highly publicized lawsuits by former college players claiming violations of their right of publicity. Thus far, two federal appeals courts – the Third Circuit in Hart v. Electronic Arts and the Ninth Circuit in Keller v. Electronic Arts -- have refused to dismiss their claims, concluding that the use of the player images constitute a valid cause of action. While their actions have garnered sympathy among the public and many scholars, it is the author’s contention that both lawsuits – along ...

Begging To Be Constitutional, Magali J. Sanders

Magali J Sanders

This comment argues that a City of Miami ordinance prohibiting begging, soliciting, and panhandling in the Downtown business district is constitutional because it is aimed at combating the secondary effects of soliciting. Traditionally, courts have analyzed content-based and content-neutral speech restrictions using strict and intermediate scrutiny tests, respectively.

This comment urges courts to use the secondary effects test applied in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., where the court upheld a zoning ordinance prohibiting adult movie theatres from locating within a certain distance of residential homes. The court focused on the purpose of the ordinance, which was to prevent ...

Religious Associations: Hosanna-Tabor And The Instrumental Value Of Religious Groups, Ashutosh A. Bhagwat

Ashutosh Bhagwat

In its 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Church & Sch. V. EEOC, the Supreme Court held that the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment require recognition of a “ministerial exception” to general antidiscrimination statutes (in that case, the ADA), because religious institutions must have autonomy in selecting their ministers. In the course of its analysis, however, the Court made a very interesting move. In response to the government’s argument that the case could be resolved under the general First Amendment right of association, the Court responded that this position was “untenable,” and indeed “remarkable,” because the very existence of the ...

First Amendment Enclave: Is The Public University Curriculum Immune From The Sweep Of The Compelled Speech Doctrine?, Joseph J. Martins

Faculty Publications and Presentations

Seventy years ago, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the United States Supreme Court eloquently held that the state could not compel public schoolchildren to salute the flag while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The decision has been heralded as one of the Court’s most significant free speech cases because it acknowledged expansive protection for freedom of conscience. But recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that Barnette’s protection does not extend to college students who challenge their public institution’s curriculum because university enrollment is “voluntary.” The impact of ...

The New Religious Institutionalism Meets The Old Establishment Clause, Gregory P. Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

Recent religious liberty scholarship spotlights the legal rights of churches and similar religious institutions, as distinct from the rights of individual religious believers. Advocates of “the new religious institutionalism” argue that religious institutions need robust legal rights in order to effectuate their institutional functions and advance religious believers’ interests. The Supreme Court recently fanned the new institutionalist flame by holding, in Hosanna Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, that the Constitution protects churches from legal liability for employment discrimination in hiring ministers. In this essay, Professor Magarian considers a complication that advocates of the new religious institutionalism have generally ignored ...

Rehabilitating The Property Theory Of Copyright's First Amendment Exemption, Tun-Jen Chiang

Notre Dame Law Review

A continuing controversy in copyright law is the exemption of copyright from First Amendment scrutiny. The Supreme Court has justified the exemption based on history and the intentions of the Framers, but this explanation is unpersuasive on the historical facts.

There is an alternative explanation: copyright is property, and private property is generally exempt from scrutiny under standard First Amendment doctrine. Many scholars have noted this theory, but they have been harshly dismissive towards it. For example, Mark Lemley and Eugene Volokh view the property theory as so clearly wrong as to be a “non sequitur,” because it supposedly implies ...

Online Terms Of Service: A Shield For First Amendment Scrutiny Of Government Action, Jacquelyn E. Fradette

Notre Dame Law Review

Part I of this Note will canvas popular opinions and perceptions about First Amendment rights on the Internet using examples of public outcry over recent instances of speech limitation. It will also discuss the state action doctrine generally and how the presence of this doctrine most likely renders certain popular public constitutional intuitions about the First Amendment erroneous.

Part II will provide an overview of how courts have taken an expansive and protective view of private ordering between online parties. It will discuss how courts have developed a robust freedom to contract jurisprudence in the Internet context. Because courts essentially ...

Protecting More Than The Front Page: Codifying A Reporter’S Privilege For Digital And Citizen Journalists, Kathryn A. Rosenbaum

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note will first explain, in Part I, why journalists need to be protected, and detail the history of reporters invoking a reporter’s privilege in court to protect themselves from revealing their sources or information. It will then discuss Branzburg v. Hayes in Section II.A. Section II.B briefly examines circuits’ receptivity to statutory or constitutional protections of reporters. The Supreme Court has stated that Congress could pass a law to protect reporters. However, while multiple federal shield laws have been proposed, none have been passed. The most recent proposal occurred in 2013, and as of December 2013 ...