Law Commons^™

The Marginality Of Citizens United, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

“Certain Fundamental Truths”: A Dialectic On Negative And Positive Liberty In Hate-Speech Cases, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Hate And The Bar: Is The Hale Case Mccarthyism Redux Or A Victory For Racial Equality?, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The application of the constitutional free expression guarantee to the activities of the organized bar is one of the most important unexplored areas of legal ethics. In this essay I will consider in particular the question of whether an applicant may be denied admission to the bar for involvement with hateful or discriminatory activities. This question reveals the tension between the first amendment principle, established after the agonizing struggles of the McCarthy era, that no one may be denied membership in the bar because of his or her beliefs alone, and the plenary authority of bar associations to make predictive …

When Should Rights "Trump"? An Examination Of Speech And Property, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Antidiscrimination Laws & Artistic Expression, Steven H. Shiffrin, Gregory R. Smith

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The Politics Of The Mass Media And The Free Speech Principle, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The First Amendment And Economic Regulation: Away From A General Theory Of The First Amendment, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Defamatory Non-Media Speech And First Amendment Methodology, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In the course of his eloquent commentary upon New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the late Professor Kalven enthused that the Court had written "an opinion that may prove to be the best and most important it has ever produced in the realm of freedom of speech." This excitement was generated not by the Court's rather narrow holding but rather by the hope that Sullivan would serve as the opening wedge to dislodge the clear and present danger test, to dismantle the "two-level" approach to first amendment analysis (reflected in cases such as Chaplinsky, Beauharnais, and Roth …