Law Commons^™

Does It Matter How One Opposes Memory Bans? A Commentary On Liberte Pour L'Histoire, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

This paper examines Liberté pour l'Histoire, a group of French historians who led the charge against that nation’s memory laws, in the process raising unique arguments not found elsewhere in the debate over hate speech regulation. Some of these arguments – such as a focus on how the constitutional structure of the Fifth Republic encouraged memory laws – advance our understanding of the connection between hate speech bans and political institutions. Other arguments, however, are more problematic. In particular, Liberté historians struggle to distinguish the Holocaust (which is illegal to deny) from the Armenian Genocide (which is not). The Liberté …

Nothing To Do With Personhood: Corporate Constitutional Rights And The Principle Of Confiscation, Paul Kens Dr.

Paul Kens Dr.

In its 2010 decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission the Supreme Court overruled a federal statute that limited a corporation’s ability to pay for political advertising out of its general treasury funds. Those limits, it ruled, violated the corporation’s right to freedom of speech. The case has since become notorious for the widely held belief that, in doing so, the Court declared that corporations are “persons,” possessing the same constitutional rights as flesh and blood human beings. Four years later the Court seemed to expand on this conclusion when it ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that a general …

Mother May I? No, You May Not! Parental Consent Requirements For Students To Participate In Student-Led Clubs At Public Schools, Kelly A. Sherrill Linkous

Kelly A. Sherrill Linkous

This article considers the constitutionality of laws or policies requiring parental consent for student participation in school-based clubs or organizations, along with their consistency with the language in the federal Equal Access Act. It weighs the dueling parental right to direct the upbringing of their children against students’ constitutional speech and religious exercise rights within the schoolhouse gate. As a vehicle to analyze the constitutionality of all similarly-worded state laws and school district policies, the article examines a Georgia statute mandating parental consent for student participation in clubs. The Georgia statute is similar to Oklahoma’s and Utah’s statutes, as well …

Free Exercise And The Definition Of Religion: Confusion In The Federal Courts, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The United States Supreme Court has sent mixed messages about what constitutes religion for free exercise purposes. The Court’s failure to offer clear criteria has resulted in widely differing interpretations in the lower courts, resulting in dissimilar treatment of relevantly similar cases. Further, some of the circuit courts employ factors to determine what qualifies as religious that are much more restrictive than the factors employed by the Court.

This article describes some of the differing approaches to defining religion offered in the circuits, noting that one of the approaches adopted across a few circuits not only mischaracterizes the Supreme Court’s …

Definitions, Religion, And Free Exercise Guarantees, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. Non-religious practices do not receive those same protections, which makes the ability to distinguish between religious and non-religious practices important. Regrettably, members of the Court have been unable to agree about how to distinguish the religious from the non-religious—sometimes, the implicit criteria focus on the sincerity of the beliefs, sometimes the strength of the beliefs or the role that they play in an individual’s life, and sometimes the kind of beliefs. In short, the Court has virtually guaranteed an incoherent jurisprudence by sending contradictory signals with …

The Doctrine Of True Threats: Protecting Our Ever-Shrinking First Amendment Rights In The New Era Of Communication, Mary M. Roark

Mary M Roark

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Such protection has withstood the test of time and is heralded as one of our most precious rights as Americans. “The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow ‘free trade in ideas’—even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting." However, “[t]here are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem." One such proscribable form of speech is the “true …

Dogging Darwin: America's Revolt Against The Teaching Of Evolution, J. Herbie Difonzo, Ruth C. Stern

J. Herbie DiFonzo

Abstract

More than four in ten Americans believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago. American antagonism toward the teaching of evolution is deeply rooted in fundamentalist tradition and an aversion to intellectualism. These forces have combined to demonize Charles Darwin to such an extent that sectarian-based legal and political attacks on evolution show no signs of abating. Darwin’s day in court began in 1925 with the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. It continued into the 21^st century with Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Schools. Throughout, the core creationist agenda has remained the same, although an …

Free Expression, In-Group Bias, And The Court's Conservatives: A Critique Of The Epstein-Parker-Segal Study, Todd E. Pettys

Todd E. Pettys

In a recent, widely publicized study, a prestigious team of political scientists concluded that there is strong evidence of ideological in-group bias among the Supreme Court’s members in First Amendment free-expression cases, with the current four most conservative justices being the Roberts Court’s worst offenders. Beneath the surface of the authors’ conclusions, however, one finds a surprisingly sizable combination of coding errors, superficial case readings, and questionable judgments about litigants’ ideological affiliations. Many of those problems likely flow either from shortcomings that reportedly afflict the Supreme Court Database (the data set that nearly always provides the starting point for empirical …

Can A One Star Review Get You Sued? The Right To Anonymous Speech On The Internet And The Future Of Internet “Unmasking” Statutes, Jesse D. Lively

Jesse D Lively

This Comment argues that the Supreme Court of Virginia should first reverse the Virginia Court of Appeal’s decision when it hears the Yelp case later this year. Secondly, the court hold that the Virginia statute for identifying persons communicating anonymously over the Internet violates the First Amendment's required showing of merit on both law and facts before a subpoena duces tecum to identify an anonymous speaker can be enforced. Lastly, it should adopt a new “unveiling standard” similar to the standards used in either Dendrite or Cahill. Part II examines the jurisprudential history of identifying anonymous Internet speakers in defamation …

Toward A New Separation Of Church And State: Implications For Analogies To Last Year's Supreme Court Decision In Hobby Lobby By This Year's Decision In Obergefell V. Hodges, Vincent Samar

Vincent J. Samar

No abstract provided.

Bad Math: How Non-Union Employees Are Unconstitutionally Compelled To Subsidize Political Speech, Shirley V. Svorny, Melanie S. Williams

Melanie S. Williams

Employees’ right to organize and be represented by unions is in tension with the right of other employees not to join organizations as a condition of employment. Current law permits unions to assess agency fees from represented non-members, reflecting the cost of representational activities (for example, contract negotiation). Unions may not, however, assess non-members for the cost of political activities, since this would infringe on the constitutional rights of such employees by requiring them to subsidize political speech. The method of calculating agency fees, however, has been almost uniformly mishandled, resulting in overcharging non-union members. In this paper, we examine …

“Fire Away”: I Have No Right To Not Be Insulted, David Barnhizer

David Barnhizer

In theory, universities are the institutions that are responsible for advancing our freedom of thought and discourse through the work of independent scholars and the teaching of each generation of students. But for several decades, universities and other educational institutions have increasingly set up rules aimed at protecting individuals and groups from criticism that those newly empowered individuals and groups consider insensitive, offensive, harassing, intolerant and disrespectful, or critical of their core belief systems. Even though it has been claimed that disadvantaged interest groups have a right to use one-sided tactics of intolerance against those they consider to be responsible …

Why Personhood Matters, Tamara R. Piety

Tamara R. Piety

One of the most controversial aspect of the Supreme Court's decisions in Citizens United and Hobby Lobby is its treatment of corporate personhood. Many members of the public object to the notion that corporations should have the same rights as human beings. Yet many scholars claim that this concern is misplaced. In this article I argue that concern about corporate personhood is not misplaced because the personhood metaphor conceals the degree to which there has not been an adequate justification given for extending fundamental rights to corporations. Focusing on personhood allows us to push on the metaphor to ask whether …

A Quantum Congress, Jorge R. Roig

Jorge R Roig