Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Education Law

University of Washington School of Law

2007

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Plainly Offensive Babel: An Analytical Framework For Regulating Plainly Offensive Speech In Public Schools, Jerry C. Chiang May 2007

Plainly Offensive Babel: An Analytical Framework For Regulating Plainly Offensive Speech In Public Schools, Jerry C. Chiang

Washington Law Review

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. The guarantee is not absolute, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment does not fully protect student speech in public schools. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Court held that schools could regulate "plainly offensive" speech. Circuit courts have interpreted and applied Fraser in an inconsistent manner, disagreeing as to what constitutes plainly offensive speech. The resulting case law is confusing and fails to provide lower courts with a clear analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment challenges to regulations …


Freedom To Explore: Using The Eleventh Amendment To Liberate Researchers At State Universities From Liability For Intellectual Property Infringements, Gary Pulsinelli May 2007

Freedom To Explore: Using The Eleventh Amendment To Liberate Researchers At State Universities From Liability For Intellectual Property Infringements, Gary Pulsinelli

Washington Law Review

In its 1999 decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment protected states from suit for patent infringement, effectively making state universities immune from intellectual property suits. This Article analyzes how the Florida Prepaid decision affects researchers at state universities, and how those researchers may avoid liability under existing law. It first concludes that researchers at state universities might still be subject to injunctions against future infringement. The Article next observes that individual researchers at state universities might also face personal liability for damages, but then suggests …


Freedom To Explore: Using The Eleventh Amendment To Liberate Researchers At State Universities From Liability For Intellectual Property Infringements, Gary Pulsinelli May 2007

Freedom To Explore: Using The Eleventh Amendment To Liberate Researchers At State Universities From Liability For Intellectual Property Infringements, Gary Pulsinelli

Washington Law Review

In its 1999 decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, the Supreme Court held that the Eleventh Amendment protected states from suit for patent infringement, effectively making state universities immune from intellectual property suits. This Article analyzes how the Florida Prepaid decision affects researchers at state universities, and how those researchers may avoid liability under existing law. It first concludes that researchers at state universities might still be subject to injunctions against future infringement. The Article next observes that individual researchers at state universities might also face personal liability for damages, but then suggests …


Plainly Offensive Babel: An Analytical Framework For Regulating Plainly Offensive Speech In Public Schools, Jerry C. Chiang May 2007

Plainly Offensive Babel: An Analytical Framework For Regulating Plainly Offensive Speech In Public Schools, Jerry C. Chiang

Washington Law Review

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. The guarantee is not absolute, however, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment does not fully protect student speech in public schools. In Bethel School District v. Fraser, the Court held that schools could regulate "plainly offensive" speech. Circuit courts have interpreted and applied Fraser in an inconsistent manner, disagreeing as to what constitutes plainly offensive speech. The resulting case law is confusing and fails to provide lower courts with a clear analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment challenges to regulations …