Law Commons^™

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, David F. Forte, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, And David A., Skeel, Supporting Petitioners, David Forte, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, David A. Skeel

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The case concerns the "church autonomy doctrine" based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that courts may not inquire into matters of church government or into disputes of faith and doctrine. Will McRaney was fired from a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention because of a conflict over policies relating to the expansion of the Baptist faith. He sued the Southern Baptist Convention in tort.

The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the church autonomy doctrine. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal as "premature," asserting that there were possible …

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …