Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- United States Constitution 1st Amendment (12)
- Freedom of Speech (5)
- Freedom of Expression (2)
- All Writs Act (1)
- Apportionment (1)
-
- Bowe Bergdahl (1)
- Brett Kavanaugh (1)
- Church and State (1)
- Constitutitonal Law (1)
- Dissent (1)
- Election Districts (1)
- Election Law (1)
- Equal Access Act (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Gender Equality (1)
- Gerrymandering (1)
- Good News Club v. Milford Central School District (533 U.S. 98 (2001)) (1)
- Intellectual Property (1)
- Judicial Candidates (1)
- Military Law (1)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 (1964)) (1)
- Pornography (1)
- Preliminary Hearings (1)
- Probable Cause (1)
- Religion in Schools (1)
- Searches and Seizures (1)
- Snyder v. Phelps (131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)) (1)
- Torts (1)
- United States (1)
- United States Constitution 2nd Amendment (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas
The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon
Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …
Section 1: Moot Court: Nieves, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Section 1: Moot Court: Nieves, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School
Supreme Court Preview
No abstract provided.
Managing Dissent, Timothy Zick
Managing Dissent, Timothy Zick
Faculty Publications
In his insightful new book, Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment (2017), Professor Greg Magarian criticizes the Roberts Court for adopting a "managed speech" approach in its First Amendment cases. According to Professor Magarian, that approach gives too much power to private and governmental actors to manage public discourse, constrain dissident speakers, and instill social and political stability. This Article argues that at least insofar as it relates to many forms of public dissent, the managed speech approach is both deeply rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence and culturally prevalent. Historically, First Amendment jurisprudence has expressed support for narrowly managed …
President Trump: Challenging Core First Amendment Principles, Timothy Zick
President Trump: Challenging Core First Amendment Principles, Timothy Zick
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The First Amendment, The Second Amendment, And 3d Firearms, Timothy Zick
The First Amendment, The Second Amendment, And 3d Firearms, Timothy Zick
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
Judge Kavanaugh And Freedom Of Expression, Timothy Zick
Judge Kavanaugh And Freedom Of Expression, Timothy Zick
Popular Media
No abstract provided.
The Visibility Value Of The First Amendment, Brian C. Murchison
The Visibility Value Of The First Amendment, Brian C. Murchison
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert
Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …
A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane
A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …
Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler
Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
No abstract provided.
Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji
Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji
William & Mary Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter
The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and Private First Class Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning have something in common. Military officials unlawfully closed all or portions of their preliminary hearings to the public. When doing so, military officials exploited two unusual features of the military justice system, thereby denying the accused and the media of their respective Sixth Amendment and First Amendment rights to a public hearing.
The first feature is that the military justice system does not include a standing trial-level court. If there is a problem at the preliminary hearing, the accused and media have nowhere to go for help. The accused …
Pornography And Gender Inequality—Using Copyright Law As A Step Forward, Kayla Louis
Pornography And Gender Inequality—Using Copyright Law As A Step Forward, Kayla Louis
William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice
No abstract provided.