Law Commons^™

Visual Gut Punch: Persuasion, Emotion, And The Constitutional Meaning Of Graphic Disclosure, Ellen P. Goodman

ellen p. goodman

The ability of government to “nudge” with information mandates, or merely to inform consumers of risks, is circumscribed by First Amendment interests that have been poorly articulated in the relevant law and commentary. New graphic cigarette warning labels supplied courts with the first opportunity to assess the informational interests attending novel forms of product disclosures. The D.C. Circuit enjoined them as unconstitutional, compelled by a narrative that the graphic labels converted government from objective informer to ideological persuader, shouting its warning to manipulate consumer decisions. This interpretation will leave little room for graphic disclosure and is already being used to …

Flemming Rose's Rejection Of The American Free Speech Canon And The Poverty Of Comparative Constitutional Theory, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

In the fifteen page English language excerpt of his recent memoir The Tyranny of Silence, Danish publisher Flemming Rose gave an extended defense of his decision to run the cartoon images of the Prophet Mohammed. Current First Amendment doctrine almost certainly would treat this act as protected speech. But Rose barely mentions the First Amendment. Instead, he develops a highly personal theory of speech based on his experience in the Soviet Union and discussions with Salman Rushdie. Like many American legal academics Rose opposes bans on hate speech, but he does so for different reasons.

From a comparative law …

Lights, Camera, Arrest: The Stage Is Set For A Federal Resolution Of A Citizen's Right To Record The Police In Public, Taylor R. Robertson

Taylor R Robertson

Grab your cellphone, press the record button, and amaze your friends!

No advertisement like this exists in real life, of course, because the action is already universally automatic—it needs no encouragement or instruction. But aim the camera at the police and you could be arrested and face up to fifteen years in prison under some eavesdropping or wiretapping laws simply for recording the police in public speaking at volumes audible to any unassisted ear. While wiretapping laws were originally intended to protect citizens from the snooping detective, some states have effectively turned these laws into government protection from the watchful …

Sex Is Less Offensive Than Violence: A Call To Update Obscenity Jurisprudence, Rachel Simon

Rachel Simon

This article addresses the gender bias presented by the disparate treatment of sex and violence under current obscenity jurisprudence. Under the controlling standard set forth by the Supreme Court in Miller v. California, sexual works may readily be regulated as obscenity, while violent works unequivocally may not. This article posits that this disparate treatment is the product of entrenched stereotypes about the way men and women “should” react to sex and violence, and notes the hypocrisy of failing to apply the same reasoning to assessments of violent versus sexual material.

First, reliance on “community standards” to define what material …

Deciding Who Decides: Searching For A Deference Standard When Agencies Preempt State Law, John R. Ablan

John R Ablan

When a federal agency determines that the statute that it administers or regulations it has promulgated preempt state law, how much deference must a federal court give to that determination? In Wyeth v. Levine, the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide what standard of deference courts should apply when an agency makes a preemption determination pursuant to a specific congressional delegation to do so. Under this circumstance, this Article counsels against applying any single deference standard to an agency’s entire determination. Instead, it observes that preemption determinations are a complex inquiry involving questions of federal law, state law, and …

Federal Prohibition Of Medical Marijuana In Pain Management: Undue, Unimportant, And Irrational, Michael L. Timm Jr.

Michael L. Timm Jr.

This paper provides a review of the historical right of the people of the United States to seek, and use, alternative medicinal treatment options in the realm of managing both the pain and symptoms associated with a variety of illnesses. The focus then turns to the right involved: a patient’s ability to employ medical marijuana instead of a commonly prescribed narcotic or mass-market non-steroidal anti-inflammatory analgesic (NSAIA) drug to manage pain and increase quality of life under the advice and consent of a treating physician. No one article has argued that there is a fundamental, important, or at least recognizable …

Introduction To The Theory Of Law: History And The Unity Of Legal Things, John Lunstroth

John Lunstroth

I propose a general theory of the law. I begin with the history of the western legal tradition. When tracing laws, or legal things, over long periods of time it is apparent that the positivist theory is inadequate to describe law. Natural law similarly fails to explain what is seen in the historical record. I suggest an historicist theory best describes the law when seen as a conceptual and historical whole. I then identify a fundamental break in the historical record, the Enlightenment, when the scientific worldview became dominant. The scientific gaze splits nature (including law) into two parts, moral …

Parallel Justice: Creating Causes Of Action For Mandatory Mediation, Marie A. Failinger

Marie A. Failinger

. This article proposes that the American common law system should adopt court-connected mandatory mediation as a parallel system of justice for some cases currently not justiciable, such as wrongs caused by constitutionally protected behavior. It describes systemic and ethical parallels between court-connected mediation and the rise of the equity courts, discusses practical objections to the idea of mandatory mediation, and tests the idea of "mandatory mediation-only" causes of action using constitutional hate speech and invasion of privacy examples.

Clear Depictions Promote Clear Decisions: Drafting Abortion Speech-And-Display Statutes That Pass First And Fourteenth Amendment Muster, Ryan J. Pulkrabek

Ryan J Pulkrabek

Several states have passed legislation requiring physicians to take, display, and describe an ultrasound to their patients who are seeking an abortion. These statutes have been challenged under both the Fourteenth and First Amendments because the statutes place burdens on women who seek abortion and compel physician speech. Courts are divided on these questions and state legislatures need guidance as they consider reform. This Article proposes a model "speech-and-display" statute that is both consistent with the Constitution and good public policy. This model statute is designed to protect the mental health of patients and the life of the unborn by …

Do California’S Teacher Tenure Laws Violate California’S Constitutional Right To Education, Allen W. Hubsch

Allen W Hubsch

The accompanying note addresses an important and topical issue. In May 2012, Ted Olson, the former Solicitor General of the United States, and Theodore Boutrous, co-chair of the appellate practice at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, entitled Vargara v. California, naming the State of California, the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District and others as defendants.

The complaint alleges that California’s teacher tenure statutes are unconstitutional under the California constitution because such laws have the effect of preventing school districts from providing a quality education to school age …

Why Do Europeans Ban Hate Speech? A Debate Between Karl Loewenstein And Robert Post, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

European countries restrict hate speech, the United States does not. This much is clear. What explains this difference? Too often the current discussion falls back on a culturally rich but normatively vacant exceptionalism (American or otherwise) or a normatively driven convergence perspective that fails to address historical, cultural and experiential differences that distinguish countries and legal systems. Inspired by the development discourse of historical sociology, this article seeks to record instances where Americans or Europeans have argued their approach to hate speech laws was more “advanced” or “modern.”

To that end this article focuses on two authors whose writing appears …

The Risky Interplay Of Tort And Criminal Law: Punitive Damages, Daniel M. Braun

Daniel M Braun

The rise of modern mass tort litigation in the U.S. has transformed punitive damages into something of a “hot button” issue. Since the size of punitive damage awards grew so dramatically in the past half century, this private law remedy has begun to involve issues of constitutional rights that traditionally pertained to criminal proceedings. This has created a risky interplay between tort and criminal law, and courts have thus been trying to find ways to properly manage punitive damage awards. The once rapidly expanding universe of punitive damages is therefore beginning to contract. There remain, however, very serious difficulties. Despite …