Digital Commons Network^™

Holmes, Humility, And How Not To Kill Each Other, John Inazu

Notre Dame Law Review

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s dissent in Abrams v. United States is one of the intellectual anchors of modern First Amendment doctrine. In that opinion, Holmes sets out two core aspects of his free speech jurisprudence: his pragmatic concern about majoritarian control and his quasi-libertarian preference for the “competition of the market.” In the century since Abrams, we have witnessed changes in society, technology, and politics that have shaped and reshaped the contours of our First Amendment landscape. But not everything has changed—some aspects of our human experience remain remarkably similar to the context in which Holmes wrote.

One unchanged …

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle Keats Citron

Notre Dame Law Review

Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a full-throated champion of First Amendment values. The dominant online platforms, however, have recently adopted speech policies and processes that depart from the U.S. model. In an agreement with the European Commission, the dominant tech companies have pledged to respond to reports of hate speech within twenty-four hours, a hasty process that may trade valuable expression for speedy results. Plans have been announced for an industry database that will allow the same companies to share hashed images of banned extremist content for review and removal elsewhere. These changes are less the result of …

Patent Cases And Public Controversies, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Notre Dame Law Review

The Article proceeds as follows. Part I summarizes the evolution of the current standard for justiciability in declaratory patent cases, including the Supreme Court’s MedImmune opinion and its progeny in the Federal Circuit and the lower courts. Part II discusses the growing trend of public interest patent litigation and the hurdles declaratory plaintiffs face on justiciability grounds despite courts’ approval of patent challenges generally on policy grounds. Finally, Part III introduces a legislative reform that promises to afford justiciability for some members of the public without compromising Article III’s emphasis on private adjudication.

Race To Judgment? An Empirical Study Of Scott V. Harris And Summary Judgment, Amelia G. Yowell

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.

Behavior Modification: Legal Limitations On Methods And Goals, C. Benjamin Moya, Roberta Achtenberg

Notre Dame Law Review

No abstract provided.