Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

First Amendment Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

4,789 Full-Text Articles 3,094 Authors 1,432,803 Downloads 134 Institutions

All Articles in First Amendment

Faceted Search

4,789 full-text articles. Page 7 of 130.

The Expansion Of Charitable Choice, The Faith Based Initiative, And The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Steven Fitzgerald 2017 St. John's University School of Law

The Expansion Of Charitable Choice, The Faith Based Initiative, And The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Steven Fitzgerald

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


Mitchell V. Helms: Does Government Aid To Religious Schools Violate The First Amendment? An Extensive Analysis Of The Decision And Its Repercussions, Peter Swift 2017 St. John's University School of Law

Mitchell V. Helms: Does Government Aid To Religious Schools Violate The First Amendment? An Extensive Analysis Of The Decision And Its Repercussions, Peter Swift

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


Illusion Or Protection? Free Exercise Rights And Laws Mandating Insurance Coverage Of Contraception, Edward T. Mechmann, Esq. 2017 St. John's University School of Law

Illusion Or Protection? Free Exercise Rights And Laws Mandating Insurance Coverage Of Contraception, Edward T. Mechmann, Esq.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


Constitutional Jurisprudence Of Law And Religion: Privacy V. Piety - Has The Supreme Court Petered Out?, Matthew A. Ritter, M.Div., J.D., Ph.D. 2017 St. John's University School of Law

Constitutional Jurisprudence Of Law And Religion: Privacy V. Piety - Has The Supreme Court Petered Out?, Matthew A. Ritter, M.Div., J.D., Ph.D.

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


Education Funding In Maine In Light Of Zelman And Locke: Too Much Play In The Joints?, Sarah M. Lavigne 2017 University of Maine School of Law

Education Funding In Maine In Light Of Zelman And Locke: Too Much Play In The Joints?, Sarah M. Lavigne

Maine Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has struggled with the countervailing directives of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause for decades. One area in which this battle has been particularly contentious is the issue of public funding of religious schools. On one hand, opponents argue that such funding is an impermissible co-mingling of church and state, thereby violating the Establishment Clause. Meanwhile, proponents of public funding of religious schools argue that, to withhold funding from religious schools would place a burden on those wishing to send their children to religious schools, thereby impermissibly preventing individuals from practicing their faith ...


The Regulation Of Indecent Material Accessible To Children On The Internet, Joel Sanders 2017 St. John's University School of Law

The Regulation Of Indecent Material Accessible To Children On The Internet, Joel Sanders

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.


The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans § 230 Immunity, Danielle Keats Citron, Benjamin Wittes 2017 University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans § 230 Immunity, Danielle Keats Citron, Benjamin Wittes

Fordham Law Review

Section 230 is overdue for a rethinking. If courts do not construe the scope of federal immunity to avoid injustice, we argue, Congress should amend the law. This is not to discount the important role that the immunity provision has played over the past twenty years. Far from it. Section 230 immunity has enabled innovation and expression beyond the imagination of the operators of early bulletin boards and computer service providers the provision was designed to protect. But its overbroad interpretation has left victims of online abuse with no leverage against site operators whose business models facilitate abuse. This state ...


The Role Of Internet Intermediaries In Tackling Terrorism Online, Raphael Cohen-Almagor 2017 University of Hull

The Role Of Internet Intermediaries In Tackling Terrorism Online, Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Fordham Law Review

Gatekeeping is defined as the work of third parties “who are able to disrupt misconduct by withholding their cooperation from wrongdoers.”1 Internet intermediaries need to be far more proactive as gatekeepers than they are now. Socially responsible measures can prevent the translation of violent thoughts into violent actions. Designated monitoring mechanisms can potentially prevent such unfortunate events. This Article suggests an approach that harnesses the strengths and capabilities of the public and private sectors in offering practical solutions to pressing problems. It proposes that internet intermediaries should fight stringently against terror and further argues that a responsible gatekeeping approach ...


Free Speech And The Confluence Of National Security And Internet Exceptionalism, Alan K. Chen 2017 University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Free Speech And The Confluence Of National Security And Internet Exceptionalism, Alan K. Chen

Fordham Law Review

In this Article, I argue that, notwithstanding these contemporary developments, the Court got it mostly right in Brandenburg. Or, I want to at least suggest that it is premature to reconstruct the Brandenburg test to address perceived changes in our global environment. For the most part, Brandenburg has succeeded in mediating the balance between protecting political or ideological advocacy and enabling the government to regulate actual incitement, even in the contemporary era. Moreover, I argue that society should be especially wary of calls to narrow Brandenburg’s speech-protective standard because such changes might be significantly influenced by the confluence of ...


Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton 2017 University of Colorado School of Law

Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton

Fordham Law Review

This Article examines how the government’s speech in the War on Terror can threaten free speech, equal protection, and due process values. It focuses primarily on the constitutional harms threatened by the government’s speech itself (what some call a form of “soft law”), rather than on situations in which the government’s speech may be evidence of a constitutionally impermissible motive for its “hard law” actions.


Terror On Your Timeline: Criminalizing Terrorist Incitement On Social Media Through Doctrinal Shift, Zachary Leibowitz 2017 Fordham University School of Law

Terror On Your Timeline: Criminalizing Terrorist Incitement On Social Media Through Doctrinal Shift, Zachary Leibowitz

Fordham Law Review

The United States faces a barrage of threats from terrorist organizations on a daily basis. The government takes some steps to prevent these threats from coming to fruition, but not much is being done proactively. Any person can log into a social media account to preach hate and incite violence against the United States and its citizenry, and sometimes these words result in action. When speakers are not held accountable, they can continue to incite the masses to violent action across the United States. This Note proposes a new incitement doctrine to prevent these speakers from being able to spread ...


Terrorist Advocacy And Exceptional Circumstances, David S. Han 2017 Pepperdine University School of Law

Terrorist Advocacy And Exceptional Circumstances, David S. Han

Fordham Law Review

This Article proceeds as follows. Part I discusses the harmful effects of terrorist advocacy and outlines the present doctrinal treatment of such speech. Part II discusses the issue of exceptional circumstances and highlights the two approaches courts might take to account for them: applying strict scrutiny to the case at hand or broadly reformulating the First Amendment’s doctrinal boundaries. Part III sets forth my central thesis: courts should adhere to case-by-case strict scrutiny analysis, rather than broad doctrinal reformulation, as the initial means of accounting for exceptional circumstances with respect to terrorist advocacy. This approach reflects the vital importance ...


Terrorist Incitement On The Internet, Alexander Tsesis 2017 Loyola University School of Law

Terrorist Incitement On The Internet, Alexander Tsesis

Fordham Law Review

I organized this symposium to advance understanding of how terrorist communications drive and influence social, political, religious, civil, literary, and artistic conduct. Viewing terrorist speech through wide prisms of law, culture, and contemporary media can provide lawmakers, adjudicators, and administrators a better understanding of how to contain and prevent the exploitation of modern communication technologies to influence, recruit, and exploit others to perpetrate ideologically driven acts of violence. Undertaking such a multipronged study requires not only looking at the personal and sociological appeals that extreme ideology exerts but also considering how to create political, administrative, educational, and economic conditions to ...


Terrorizing Advocacy And The First Amendment: Free Expression And The Fallacy Of Mutual Exclusivity, Martin H. Redish, Matthew Fisher 2017 Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law

Terrorizing Advocacy And The First Amendment: Free Expression And The Fallacy Of Mutual Exclusivity, Martin H. Redish, Matthew Fisher

Fordham Law Review

Traditional free speech doctrine is inadequate to account for modern terrorist speech. Unprotected threats and substantially protected lawful advocacy are not mutually exclusive. This Article proposes recognizing a new hybrid category of speech called “terrorizing advocacy.” This is a type of traditionally protected public advocacy of unlawful conduct that simultaneously exhibits the unprotected pathologies of a true threat. This Article explains why this new category confounds existing First Amendment doctrine and details a proposed model for how the doctrine should be reshaped.


The Internet As Marketplace Of Madness— And A Terrorist’S Best Friend, Thane Rosenbaum 2017 New York University School of Law

The Internet As Marketplace Of Madness— And A Terrorist’S Best Friend, Thane Rosenbaum

Fordham Law Review

The panel I was assigned to, for this distinguished gathering of scholars at Fordham Law School, where I had previously been a professor for twentythree years, was given the name, “Caution Against Overreaching.” Overreaching and the caution it occasions, in this case, refer to the First Amendment, a uniquely American absolutist, legalistic obsession. For many who fixate on such matters, the government must never be allowed to trample upon the unfettered free speech rights guaranteed under America’s first, and most favorite, Amendment.


Entertaining Satan: Why We Tolerate Terrorist Incitement, Andrew Koppelman 2017 Northwestern University

Entertaining Satan: Why We Tolerate Terrorist Incitement, Andrew Koppelman

Fordham Law Review

Words are dangerous. That is why governments sometimes want to suppress speech. The law of free speech reflects a settled decision that, at the time that law was adopted, the dangers were worth tolerating. But people keep dreaming up nasty new things to do with speech. Recently, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist organizations have employed a small army of Iagos on the internet to recruit new instruments of destruction. Some of what they have posted is protected speech under present First Amendment law. In response, scholars have suggested that there should be some new ...


Free Speech And National Security Bootstraps, Heidi Kitrosser 2017 University of Minnesota Law School

Free Speech And National Security Bootstraps, Heidi Kitrosser

Fordham Law Review

It is troubling that courts treat administrative designations—specifically, both FTO determinations and information classification—as bootstraps by which to yank speech restrictions from the clutches of probing judicial scrutiny. This Article builds on existing scholarly critiques to identify and examine the common thread of national security bootstrapping that runs through both sets of cases. The hope is that in so doing, some greater light may be shed both on the cases themselves and, more broadly, on the costs and benefits of judicial deference to executive national security claims where civil rights and civil liberties are at stake.


Terrorists Are Always Muslim But Never White: At The Intersection Of Critical Race Theory And Propaganda, Caroline Mala Corbin 2017 University of Miami School of Law

Terrorists Are Always Muslim But Never White: At The Intersection Of Critical Race Theory And Propaganda, Caroline Mala Corbin

Fordham Law Review

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person. In the United States, two common though false narratives about terrorists who attack America abound. We see them on television, in the movies, on the news, and, currently, in the Trump administration. The first is that “terrorists are always (brown) Muslims.” The second is that “white people are never terrorists.” Different strands of critical race theory can help us understand these two narratives. One strand examines the role of unconscious cognitive biases in the production of stereotypes, such as the stereotype of ...


Social Media Accountability For Terrorist Propaganda, Alexander Tsesis 2017 Loyola University School of Law

Social Media Accountability For Terrorist Propaganda, Alexander Tsesis

Fordham Law Review

Terrorist organizations have found social media websites to be invaluable for disseminating ideology, recruiting terrorists, and planning operations. National and international leaders have repeatedly pointed out the dangers terrorists pose to ordinary people and state institutions. In the United States, the federal Communications Decency Act’s § 230 provides social networking websites with immunity against civil law suits. Litigants have therefore been unsuccessful in obtaining redress against internet companies who host or disseminate third-party terrorist content. This Article demonstrates that § 230 does not bar private parties from recovery if they can prove that a social media company had received complaints about ...


Brief Of Amici Curiae Corporate Law Professors In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Harold Kent Greenfield, Daniel A. Rubens 2017 Boston College Law School

Brief Of Amici Curiae Corporate Law Professors In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Harold Kent Greenfield, Daniel A. Rubens

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Professor Greenfield was the principal author of an amicus brief on behalf of 33 corporate law professors in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued in December 2017. The brief argues that shareholders’ religious and political beliefs should not be projected onto a corporation for purposes of First Amendment accommodation.


Digital Commons powered by bepress