Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Sticks And Stones May Break Your Bones ... But Words May Break The Bank: Monetary Damages For 'True Threats' And The Future Of Free Speech After Planned Parenthood Of The Columbia/Willamette V. American Coalition Of Life Activists, Randall D. Nicholson
Golden Gate University Law Review
This Note is divided into five parts. Part I introduces the plaintiffs and defendants in Planned Parenthood and provides a detailed description of the content of the posters as well as the other evidence used to find the defendants liable for threatening speech. Part II presents a brief description of the details of, and impetus for, the enactment of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE"), as the act provides the basis for liability. To highlight that the majority's position in Planned Parenthood did not comport with current First Amendment jurisprudence, Part III analyzes the major decisions handed …
Defaming Muhammad: Dignity, Harm, And Incitement To Religious Hatred, Peter G. Danchin
Defaming Muhammad: Dignity, Harm, And Incitement To Religious Hatred, Peter G. Danchin
Faculty Scholarship
The Danish cartoons controversy has generated a torrent of commentary seeking to define and defend competing conceptions of the normative implications of the affair. This Article addresses the question of how liberal democratic states ought to respond to visible manifestations of hatred, especially speech that constitutes incitement to religious hatred. Taking the publication of the Danish cartoons as its point of departure, the Article interrogates the complex historical and normative relationship between free speech and freedom of religion in the liberal democratic order and discusses the two critical questions of whether the cartoons give rise to a genuine conflict of …
Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman
Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This article examines the Supreme Court’s student speech framework and argues that, in focusing exclusively on the types of student speech that can be restricted, the framework fails to build in any differentiation as to how such speech can be restricted. This is true even though there are two very distinct types of speech restrictions in schools: suppression of the speech itself; and after-the-fact punishment of the student speaker. As the student speech landscape itself gets more complex – given schools’ experimentation with new disciplinary regimes along with the tremendous rise in student cyber-speech – the blurring of that distinction …