First Amendment Commons^™

“But, I Didn’T Mean To Hurt You”: Why The First Amendment Does Not Require Intent-To-Harm Provisions In Criminal “Revenge Porn” Laws, Katherine G. Foley

Boston College Law Review

Free speech protection under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is arguably one of the most essential rights that U.S. citizens hold. Since the founding of this country, a tension has existed between the government’s protection of free speech and an individual’s right to privacy. The Internet exacerbated this tension by providing an accessible avenue for the dissemination of private images for all to see. Nonconsensual pornography and “revenge porn” are at the epicenter of this issue. Today, one in twelve adults in the United States will become a victim of nonconsensual pornography during their ...

Deepfakes: A New Content Category For A Digital Age, Anna Pesetski

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, greatly benefitting society. One such benefit is people’s ability to have quick and easy access to information through news and social media. A recent concern, however, is that manipulated media, otherwise known as “deepfakes,” are being released and passed off as truth. These videos are crafted with technology that allows the creator to carefully change details of the video’s subject to make him appear to do or say things that he never did. Deepfakes are often depictions of political candidates or leaders and have the potential to influence voter choice, thereby ...

The Pure-Hearted Abrams Case, Andres Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

One hundred years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes changed his mind about the right to free speech and wound up splitting the history of free speech law into two. In his dissent in Abrams v. United States, he called for the end of the old order—in which courts often ignored or rejected free speech claims—and set the stage for the current order—in which the right to free speech is of central constitutional importance. However, a century on, scholars have been unable to identify a specific reason for Holmes’s Abrams transformation, and have instead pointed to more ...

Unmuted: Solutions To Safeguard Constitutional Rights In Virtual Courtrooms And How Technology Can Expand Access To Quality Counsel And Transparency In The Criminal Justice System, Matthew Bender

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Unfriending Tinker : The Third Circuit Holds Schools Cannot Regulate Off-Campus Social Media Speech, Amanda N. Harding

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Let’S Go To The Beach: Gender Segregation As A Tool To Accommodate Religious Minorities, Sarah Gibbons

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, David F. Forte, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, And David A., Skeel, Supporting Petitioners, David Forte, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, David A. Skeel

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The case concerns the "church autonomy doctrine" based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that courts may not inquire into matters of church government or into disputes of faith and doctrine. Will McRaney was fired from a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention because of a conflict over policies relating to the expansion of the Baptist faith. He sued the Southern Baptist Convention in tort.

The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the church autonomy doctrine. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal as "premature," asserting that there were ...

No Child Was Harmed In The Making Of This Video: Morphed Child Pornography And The First Amendment, Taylor Comerford

Boston College Law Review

On February 13, 2020, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held, in United States v. Mecham, that the First Amendment does not protect morphed child pornography as a form of speech. The Fifth Circuit found that “morphed child pornography” is like “real child pornography” because the content harms the emotional health and reputation of a child. Thus, the Fifth Circuit held that the First Amendment excludes both forms of child pornography from protection. The Sixth and Second Circuits follow this rule, emphasizing that the government has a strong imperative to intervene in situations that harm children. In contrast, the Eighth ...

Barring Immoral Speech In Patent And Copyright, Ned Snow

SMU Law Review

In the past three years, the Supreme Court has twice ruled that Congress’s moral bars to trademark protection violate the First Amendment. Those rulings raise a simple question in other areas of intellectual property. Does the First Amendment preclude Congress from denying patent or copyright protection based on a moral reason? Congress, for instance, might deny patent protection for inventions directed toward the consumption of marijuana. Inventors would accordingly choose not to disclose knowledge about those inventions to the public, and the denial would chill their speech. Similarly, Congress would chill speech if it denied copyright protection for moral ...

Corruption In Capsules: How It Is Legal For Companies To Put Harmful Ingredients In Vitamins And Dietary Supplements, Emily Leggiero

English Department: Research for Change - Wicked Problems in Our World

The vitamin and supplement industry has increased exponentially in profits as well as potential products on the market since the turn of the century. However, these products are not regulated, nor do they undergo any premarket clinical research or testing. Public health is compromised by vitamins and supplements that are available for American consumption that is disproportionately unregulated to their chemically similar counterparts. This wicked problem is facilitated through the combination of historical legislative definitions that has since been distorted for corrupt administrative gain through the allotment of corporate expenditures. Company disbursements are made to the same policymakers that create ...

Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart: A Synopsis And Archive For A First Amendment Landmark, Sydney Brun-Ozuna

Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

This project explores in depth the background, arguments, precedents, and impact of the First Amendment Supreme Court case, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. This project utilizes newspaper coverage of the trial that informed the case and the case’s journey to the United States Supreme Court, as well as files obtained from the chambers of multiple former U.S. Supreme Court justices, publicly available oral arguments made before the court, and the ultimate decision from the Supreme Court, to create a holistic image of this case. Given the importance of this case in securing the right of the press to ...

The Bumble Bill: A Critical Analysis On Texas’S New Law Taking Indecent Exposure Regulations Online, Ashley B. Huron

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

“You Just Need To Do It!”: When Texts Encouraging Suicide Do Not Warrant Free Speech Protection, Courtney E. Ruggeri

Boston College Law Review

Is it constitutional to hold an individual criminally liable for another’s suicide when words alone drive the conviction? After a Massachusetts court convicted Michelle Carter of involuntary manslaughter following the suicide of her boyfriend Conrad Roy in 2014, the answer seemed to be “yes.” Although Carter’s conviction—which focused on the content of her text messages—was a first-of-its-kind, that was not the case for long. Just five years later, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts brought similar charges against Inyoung You for causing the suicide of her boyfriend, Alexander Urtula, also via text. Although the facts in the two ...

Protecting The First Amendment Rights Of Video Games From Lanham Act And Right Of Publicity Claims, Yen-Shyang Tseng

Pepperdine Law Review

In 2013 and 2015, the Ninth Circuit decided two nearly identical cases in which professional football players alleged a video game publisher used their likenesses without authorization in a game that simulates real football games. One plaintiff brought a false endorsement claim under the Lanham Act, while others brought state law right of publicity claims. That made all the difference. The Ninth Circuit found the First Amendment protected the game against the false endorsement claim, but not against the right of publicity claims. These contradictory results stem from court’s application of the Rogers v. Grimaldi test to Lanham Act ...

Federal Architecture And First Amendment Limits, Jessica Rizzo

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

In December of 2020, President Trump issued an executive order on “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture,” a draft of which was leaked to the press in February under the title, “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.” The order provided for updating the Guiding Principles of the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program to promote the use of “classical and traditional architectural styles,” which “have proven their ability to inspire…respect for our system of self-government.” According to the order, there would have been a presumption against the use of such modern architectural styles as Brutalism and Deconstructivism in the construction ...

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation ...

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American ...

Our Campaign Finance Nationalism, Eugene D. Mazo

Pepperdine Law Review

Campaign finance is the one area of election law that is most difficult to square with federalism. While voting has a strong federalism component—elections are run by the states and our elected officials represent concrete geographical districts—our campaign finance system, which is rooted in the First Amendment, almost entirely sidesteps the boundaries of American federalism. In so doing, our campaign finance system creates a tenuous connection between a lawmaker’s constituents, or the people who elect him, and the contributors who provide the majority of his campaign cash. The recent explosion of outside spending in American elections by ...

Privileging Opinion, Denigrating Discourse: How The Law Of Defamation Incentivizes News Talk-Show Hyperbole, Clay Calvert

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article examines how defamation law promotes a culture of hyperbole and exaggeration on television news talk shows at the expense of more meaningful dialogue and discourse. The Article uses the 2020 federal court rulings in McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC and Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow as analytical springboards to address this problem. In both cases, judges dismissed defamation claims stemming from comments made by well-known talk-show hosts—Fox News’s Tucker Carlson in McDougal and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in Herring Networks—on the ground that their remarks would not be understood by viewers as factual assertions ...

Dyroff V. Ultimate Software Group, Inc.: A Reminder Of The Broad Scope Of § 230 Immunity, Alex S. Rifkind

Golden Gate University Law Review

Part I of this Note examines the factual and procedural history of Dyroff and discusses the Ninth Circuit’s application of § 230 immunity in the case. Part II outlines the history of the CDA and examines how the federal courts have interpreted § 230 immunity leading up to its application in Dyroff. Part III discusses judicial interpretation of the scope of § 230 immunity. Lastly, Part IV argues that the Ninth Circuit correctly applied the law in the Dyroff decision, but failed to adequately define the term content-neutral. Further, by not defining what falls within the scope of content-neutral, the Ninth Circuit ...