Law Commons^™

Beyond Free Speech: Novel Approaches To Hate On The Internet In The United States, Jessica S. Henry

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

Hate on the Internet presents a unique problem in the United States. The First Amendment to the Constitution protects speech, even that which is hateful and offensive. Although the First Amendment is not without limitation and, indeed, although there have been a small number of successful prosecutions of individuals who disseminated hate speech over the Internet, web-based hate continues to receive broad First Amendment protections. Some non-governmental organizations in the United States, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have adopted innovative approaches to hate on the Internet. For instance, the ADL tracks and monitors …

Wild-West Cowboys Versus Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys: Some Problems In Comparative Approaches To Extreme Speech, Eric Heinze

Prof. Eric Heinze, Queen Mary University of London

All European states ban some form of hate speech. US law precludes such bans. In view of the political and symbolic importance of free speech, it becomes tempting to assume that trans-Atlantic differences towards hate speech reflect deeper cultural divisions.

However, we must pay attention to comparative methodology before drawing ambitious conclusions about cross-cultural social and political differences that derive solely from differences in formal, black-letter norms. In this volume, Robert Post claims that formal, constitutional requirements of content-neutral regulation reflect a freer public sphere in the US, in contrast to the European public sphere.

Yet a legal-realist approach casts …

The Case For The Third-Party Doctrine, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

This Article offers a defense of the Fourth Amendment's third party doctrine, the controversial rule that information loses Fourth Amendment protection when it is knowingly revealed to a third party. Fourth Amendment scholars have repeatedly attacked the rule on the ground that it is unpersuasive on its face and gives the government too much power This Article responds that critics have overlooked the benefits of the rule and have overstated its weaknesses. The third-party doctrine serves two critical functions. First, the doctrine ensures the technological neutrality of the Fourth Amendment. It corrects for the substitution effect of third parties that …