Law Commons^™

Police Misconduct, Video Recording, And Procedural Barriers To Rights Enforcement, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The story of police reform and of "policing the police" has become the story of video and video evidence, and "record everything to know the truth" has become the singular mantra. Video, both police-created and citizen-created, has become the singular tool for ensuring police accountability, reforming law enforcement, and enforcing the rights of victims of police misconduct. This Article explores procedural problems surrounding the use of video recording and video evidence to counter police misconduct, hold individual officers and governments accountable, and reform departmental policies, regulations, and practices. It considers four issues: 1) the mistaken belief that video can "speak …

A Jurisdictional Perspective On New York Times V. Sullivan, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

New York Times v. Sullivan, arguably the Supreme Court's most significant First Amendment decision, marks its fiftieth anniversary next year. Often overlooked in discussions of the case's impact on the freedom of speech and freedom of the press is that it arose from a complex puzzle of constitutional, statutory, and judge-made jurisdictional and procedural rules. These kept the case in hostile Alabama state courts for four years and a half-million-dollar judgment before the Times and its civil rights leader co-defendants finally could avail themselves of the structural protections of federal court and Article III judges. The case's outcome and the …

Holmes And Brennan, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

What’S Good For General Motors: Corporate Speech And The Theory Of Free Expression, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Cheers, Profanity, And Free Speech, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Compelled Expression And The Public Forum Doctrine, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

This Article analyzes the theory underlying the Fist Amendment protection against being compelled by government to utter, present, or fund unwanted expression. The author creates a three-part model for determining when the fire speech rights of an objecting payer have been triggered. Under that model, First Amendment rights are implicated when there has been an actual government compulsion requiring an individual to give money to, or for the express benefit of, a specific private speaker for some use that, in itself, should be understood as expressive. This model strikes a necessary balance between the important theoretical underpinnings of the protection …

Bartnicki As Lochner: Some Thoughts On First Amendment Lochnerism, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Two Degrees Of Speech Protection: Free Speech Through The Prism Of Agricultural Disparagement Laws, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

In the wake of a 1989 national television broadcast reporting the alleged cancer risk of a chemical applied to apples on trees, many states passed agricultural product disparagement (APD) statutes. These statutes grant civil causes of action to the growers and sellers of perishable food products, against anyone who speaks negatively or disparagingly, without basis in scientific evidence, about the product's safety. In this Article, Howard M Wasserman explores the interplay between the APD statutes and the First Amendment. First, Mr. Wasserman discusses the three categories of restrictions on the freedom of speech, focusing primarily on private civil tort actions …

Second-Best Solution: The First Amendment, Broadcast Indecency, And The V-Chip [Comments], Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

Symbolic Counter-Speech, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …