Law Commons^™

Speech And Strife, Robert Tsai

Robert L. Tsai

The essay strives for a better understanding of the myths, symbols, categories of power, and images deployed by the Supreme Court to signal how we ought to think about its authority. Taking examples from free speech jurisprudence, the essay proceeds in three steps. First, Tsai argues that the First Amendment constitutes a deep source of cultural authority for the Court. As a result, linguistic and doctrinal innovation in the free speech area have been at least as bold and imaginative as that in areas like the Commerce Clause. Second, in turning to cognitive theory, he distinguishes between formal legal argumentation …

Limited Powers In The Looking-Glass: Otiose Textualism, And An Empirical Analysis Of Other Approaches, When Activitists In Private Shopping Centers Claim State Constitutional Liberties, Richard Peltz-Steele

Richard J. Peltz-Steele

This article examines closely a narrow range of highly factually analogous cases, in which state constitutional rights are asserted despite a clear lack of entitlement to assert any federal constitutional claim. Specifically, the cases selected are those in which private persons assert a right to conduct expressive activity, including electoral activity, in private shopping centers during hours when the properties are held open to the general public. These cases may be referred to colloquially as “the mall cases.” Selected here are only those which were decided after the federal question became clear. The Article first inquires into the role of …

To Swear Or Not To Swear: Using Foul Language During A Supreme Court Oral Argument, Alan Garfield

Alan E Garfield

This essay considers the provocative question of whether it is strategically wise for a lawyer to use foul language during a Supreme Court oral argument. This issue doesn’t come up often. But it does when a lawyer claims his client’s First Amendment rights were violated when the government punished him for using foul language. If the lawyer doesn’t use his client’s offensive words, he risks conceding that these words are so horrid they warrant suppression. But if he does use the words, he risks alienating justices who find the words unseemly. The essay uses the “fleeting expletives” case that was …

“Reasoning-Lite” In The Violent Video Game Case, Alan Garfield

Alan E Garfield

One might have expected that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the violent video game case, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, would have been a thoughtful balancing of society’s competing interests in protecting freedom of speech and protecting children from harm. After all, the Supreme Court had held decades earlier that the government could deny minors access to soft-porn, or what the Court called “girlie magazines.” So one could have assumed the Court would seriously consider California’s claim that minors also needed sheltering from the grittier world of violent video game rapes, beheadings, and ethnic cleansings. Yet, as Justice Scalia’s …

The Inherent Structure Of Free Speech Law, Joshua Davis, Joshua

Joshua P. Davis

To date no one has discovered a set of organizing principles for free speech doctrine, an area of the law that has been criticized as complex, ad hoc, and even incoherent. We provide a framework that distills free speech law down to three judgments: the first about the role of government; the second about the target of government regulation; and the third a constrained cost-benefit analysis. The framework can be summarized by three propositions: first, the Constitution constrains government if it regulates private speech, but not if government speaks, sponsors speech, or restricts expression in managing an internal governmental function; …

Garcetti In Delaware: New Limits On Public Employees' Speech, Erin Daly

Erin Daly

In 2006, the Supreme Court decided Garcetti v Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), which significantly altered the free speech rights of the more than 18 million Americans who are public employees for federal, state or local government. It revised the test it had formerly used for public employee speech and, in so doing, dramatically diminished the scope of their rights. This has significant implications not only for the individuals involved, but for the public at large, and for the praxis of democracy in America: by limiting what public employees can say about their workplaces, the Court has reduced the amount …

Licensing Speech: The Case Of Vanity Plates, Marybeth Herald

Marybeth Herald

Vanity license plates qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, and denying plate requests because of their content contradicts traditional principles of free speech. State motor vehicle departments are almost as creative as applicants when it comes to ferreting out offensive license plate requests through the use of computer programs and linguists. Offensiveness, however, remains an elusive concept to capture and often lies in the eyes of a single viewer. When the government takes on the role of arbiter of good taste, it leads to arbitrary decision making and chaotic results.

Under traditional First Amendment doctrine, vanity license plates …