Law Commons^™

Brief Amici Curiae Of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1851 Center For Constitutional Law, And Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan, And Eugene Volokh In Support Of Respondent-Appellant, Joni Bey And Rebecca Rasawehr V. Jeffrey Rasawehr, Supreme Court Of Ohio (Case No. 2019-0295), David Forte, Stephen R. Lazarus, Kevin F. O'Neill, Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Kaplan, Eugene Volokh

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The brief argues that the Third District Court of Appeals, in violation of the First Amendment, erred in upholding an injunction that barred defendant from any online postings regarding plaintiff, whether or not those postings were to plaintiff or to third parties.

Does Janus Vs. Afscme Signal The Death Of Mandatory Bar Associations?, Brendan Williams

Et Cetera

In Janus vs. AFSCME, a closely-divided U.S. Supreme Court overturned a 41-year-old precedent and ruled that the practice of public sector unions charging agency fees to non-members in bargaining units, without affirmative consent, was “compelled speech.” The dissent warned that the decision had weaponized the First Amendment, and noted that “almost all economic and regulatory policy affects or touches speech.”

Does the logic of Janus apply to mandatory bar association dues? There is strong evidence it does. And if it signals the death of mandatory bar associations, would that necessarily be a bad thing for the legal profession? This …

Clear As Mud: Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, C. Ashley Saferight

Cleveland State Law Review

Rape and sexual assault laws and policies have shifted significantly in recent years, including the introduction of affirmative consent. Unfortunately, both proponents and critics tend to confuse the issues and falsely equate affirmative consent as a substantive social standard versus a procedural standard for adjudication and punishment. Although affirmative consent generally does not represent a significant change in consent law in the United States, statutes and policies requiring a further requirement that affirmative consent be clear and unambiguous (“clear affirmative consent”) are problematic and raise constitutional concerns. When clear affirmative consent policies are used as an adjudicative standard, they increase …

Rights On Publicity As Remarkably Insignificant, R. George Wright

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article introduces the right of publicity through a brief consideration of high-profile cases involving, respectively, Paris Hilton, human cannonball Hugo Zacchini, and the famous actress Olivia de Havilland. With this background understanding, the Article considers the supposed risks to freedom of speech posed by recognizing rights of publicity in a private party. From there, the Article addresses the nagging concern that the publicity rights cases promote a harmful "celebrification" of culture. Finally, the Article considers whether allowing for meaningful damage recoveries in publicity rights cases appropriately compensates victims in ways promoting the broad public interest.

Rethinking Religious Objections (Old-Testament Based) To Same-Sex Marriage, Doron M. Kalir

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court closed the door on one issue only to open the floodgates to another. While recognizing a constitutional right for same-sex marriage, the Court also legitimized religious objections to such unions, practically inviting complex legal challenges to its doors. In doing so, the Court also called for an "open and searching debate" on the issue. This Article seeks to trigger such debate.

For millennia, objections to same-sex marriage were cast in religious and moral terms. The Jewish Bible ("Old Testament"), conventional wisdom argues, provided three demonstrable proofs of the Bible's abhorrence of same-sex …