First Amendment Commons^™

What's Religion Got To Do With It? Virtually Nothing: Hosanna-Tabor And The Unbridled Power Of The Ministerial Exemption, Marsha B. Freeman

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

An Intersystemic View Of Intellectual Property And Free Speech, Mark Bartholomew, John Tehranian

Journal Articles

Intellectual property regimes operate in the shadow of the First Amendment. By deeming a particular activity as infringing, the law of copyright, trademark, and the right of publicity all limit communication. As a result, judges and lawmakers must delicately balance intellectual property rights with expressive freedoms. Interestingly, each intellectual property regime strikes the balance between ownership rights and free speech in a dramatically different way. Despite a large volume of scholarship on intellectual property rights and free speech considerations, this Article represents the first systematic effort to detail, analyze, and explain the divergent evolution of expression-based defenses in copyright, trademark, …

$4.5 Million Defamation Award Against Anti-Gay Official Upheld, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate The First Amendment?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When Congress passed the nation’s first comprehensive tobacco bill in 2009, it replaced the familiar Surgeon General’s warnings, last updated in 1984, with nine blunter warnings. The law also directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') to require color graphics to accompany the textual warnings. By law, the warnings would cover the top fifty percent of the front and back of tobacco packaging and the top twenty percent of print advertisements, bringing the United States closer to many peer countries that now require graphic warnings. Tobacco companies challenged the requirement on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the compelled disclosures …

Snake Oil Salesman Or Purveyors Of Knowledge: Off-Label Promotions And The Commercial Speech Doctrine, Constance E. Bagley, Joshua Mitts

Faculty Scholarship

The Second Circuit’s December 2012 decision in United States v. Caronia striking down the prohibition on off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs has profound implications for economic regulation in general, calling into question the constitutionality of restrictions on the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, the solicitation of shareholder proxies and periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mandatory labels on food, tobacco, and pesticides, and a wide range of privacy protections. In this Article we suggest that Caronia misconstrues the Supreme Court’s holding in Sorrell v. IMS Health, which was motivated by concerns …

The Origins Of The Privileges Or Immunities Clause, Part Iii: Andrew Johnson And The Constitutional Referendum Of 1866, Kurt T. Lash

Law Faculty Publications

This Article divides the events of 1866 into four phases. First, I discuss the early framing debates and the political rupture between congressional Republicans and President Andrew Johnson that occurred in the spring of 1866. Johnson’s March 27 veto of the Civil Rights Act and the congressional override were major public events and signaled what would become the central issue in the fall elections: whether the southern states should be readmitted without condition, or whether they must first be forced to protect the rights of citizens of the United States. The second Part discusses the final framing and initial public …

Using Feathery Birds To Disguise Hateful Speech: Avatar, Hillary: The Movie, Citizens United, And How Birds Of The Same Feather Flock Together, Angela Mae Kupenda

Journal Articles

Some types of hateful speech may be called commercialism or entertainment. Yet, this speech disguises hate. This speech seems to be harmless entertainment, as harmless as doves or feathery birds. However, in reality this speech drowns out the truth in the marketplace, as individuals appear to become more gullible in watching film and other commercial speech. This essay explores this quandary by asking, and attempting to answer, four questions. First, is there any possible negative influence from commercial media, especially film, in the marketplace of ideas about nonwhites (i.e., has the truth about race and about nonwhites already won out …

Can Moving Pictures Speak? Silent Film, Free Speech, And Social Science In Early 20th Century Law, Jennifer Petersen

Studio for Law and Culture

When the Supreme Court was first confronted with a First Amendment case involving film, it was confronted with a difficult and fascinating question: were silent films speech? The decision in the case, Mutual v. Ohio (1915), famously answered no. The decision is usually understood to be part of a tradition of interpretations of the First Amendment as applying primarily to political opinion; in this reading, film was not protected because it was entertainment and/or commerce. However, Mutual also contains a set of arguments about the nature of film as more akin to action than to speech — arguments embedded in …

Narrative Pluralism And The Doctrine Incoherence In Hosanna-Tabor, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Faculty Scholarship

In Hosanna-Tabor Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the Religion Clauses require a “ministerial exception” to federal antidiscrimination laws, holding that religious congregations have a broad and categorical immunity against government interference in ministerial employment decisions.

Hosanna-Tabor is filled with ironies. The case is as much about unjustified discrimination and administrative inconsistency as religious liberty. The Court’s endorsement of the exception as a feature of church autonomy overlooks that churches subvert autonomy as often as they protect it. The exception described by the Court is so broad, absolute, and inflexible that it …

Real Masks And Real Name Policies: Applying Anti-Mask Case Law To Anonymous Online Speech, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, but the scope of that protection has been the subject of much debate. This Article adds to the discussion of anonymous speech by examining anti-mask statutes and cases as an analogue for the regulation of anonymous speech online. Anti-mask case law answers a number of questions left open by the Supreme Court. It shows that courts have used the First Amendment to protect anonymity beyond core political speech, when mask-wearing is expressive conduct or shows a nexus with free expression. This Article explores what the anti-mask cases teach us about anonymity online, including proposed …

City Walls Can Speak: The Street Art Movement And Graffiti's Place In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Elizabeth G. Gee

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

What's All The Noise About: Did The New York Yankees Violate Fans' First Amendment Rights By Banning Vuvulezas In Yankee Stadium?, Shane Kotlarsky

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Combat: Is Fighting A Form Of Free Speech? The Ultimate Fighting Championship And Its Struggle Against The State Of New York Over The Message Of Mixed Martial Arts, Daniel Berger

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Buying The Electorate: An Empirical Study Of The Current Campaign Finance Landscape And How The Supreme Court Erred In Not Revisiting Citizens United, William Alan Nelson Ii

Cleveland State Law Review

The Article discusses how the Supreme Court erred by summarily reversing the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in Western Tradition Partnership v. AG and not revisiting its holding in Citizens United v. FEC. The Article begins by discussing the holding in the Western Tradition Partnership case and analyzing both the majority and dissenting opinions. The Article then analyzes how the Montana Supreme Court distinguished Citizens United, with the Court specifically looking at the “unique” political history in Montana and finding that Montana’s ban on corporate independent political spending served a compelling state interest and was narrowly tailored to that interest. The …

Tinker Takes On Tatro: The Minnesota Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity, Tracey Wirmani

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Sins Of Hosanna-Tabor, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court has lost sight of individual religious freedom. In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC, the Court for the first time recognized the ministerial exception, a court-created doctrine that holds that the First Amendment requires the dismissal of many employment discrimination cases against religious employers. The Court ruled unanimously that Cheryl Perich, an elementary school teacher who was fired after she tried to return to school from disability leave, could not pursue an antidiscrimination lawsuit against her employer.

This Article criticizes Hosanna-Tabor as a profound misinterpretation of the First Amendment. The Court mistakenly protected religious institutions' …

“V.I.P” Videographer Intimidation Protection: How The Government Should Protect Citizens Who Videotape The Police, David Murphy

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Child Sexualization In The Media: A Need For Reform, Punam Panchal Alam

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Charter Schools, The Establishment Clause, And The Neoliberal Turn In Public Education, Aaron J. Saiger

Faculty Scholarship

Regardless whether the American charter school can improve academic performance and provide effective alternatives to traditional public schools, its steady entrenchment as an institution portends significant, destabilizing changes across education law. In no area will its impact be more profound than the law of religion and schooling. Despite the general view that charter schools are public schools, charters’ neoliberal character — they are privately created and managed, and chosen by consumers in a marketplace — makes them private schools for Establishment Clause purposes, notwithstanding their public subsidy. This conclusion, which rests in substantial part on the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris vouchers …

Algorithms And Speech, Stuart M. Benjamin

Faculty Scholarship

One of the central questions in free speech jurisprudence is what activities the First Amendment encompasses. This Article considers that question in the context of an area of increasing importance – algorithm-based decisions. I begin by looking to broadly accepted legal sources, which for the First Amendment means primarily Supreme Court jurisprudence. That jurisprudence provides for very broad First Amendment coverage, and the Court has reinforced that breadth in recent cases. Under the Court’s jurisprudence the First Amendment (and the heightened scrutiny it entails) would apply to many algorithm-based decisions, specifically those entailing substantive communications. We could of course adopt …