Law Commons^™

Draft Of Beck Lecture - 2010, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

I am grateful to the wonderful BU community that has taught me so much, and to those who made this event possible. I thank Dean O'Rourke for hosting this wonderful event, Mary Gallagher, Cornell Stinson and Erin Elwood for organizing it, and I thank you all for coming. I am honored to follow Bill Ryckman in the Chair, a man I admire. Most especially I thank Phil Beck for his generosity to the Boston University School of Law in funding this Chair. It's flattering to me having been chosen its recipient, and flattering to the school that Phil chose us …

Best Intentions: Reconsidering Best Practices Statements In The Context Of Fair Use And Copyright Law, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

Private ordering is increasingly playing a role in determining the scope of intellectual property rights both as a de facto and a de jure matter. In this essay, I consider the best practices movement and its efforts to use private ordering to limit the scope and enforcement of copyright law. Best practices statements in the copyright context establish voluntary guidelines for what should be deemed fair uses of others’ copyrighted works. I identify some of the de facto successes of the best practices movement, but also raise a number of concerns about the project. As I have discussed elsewhere, the …

Remembering Ed Baker, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This is a short biographical piece honoring and describing deceased colleague C. Edwin Baker.

Liberating Copyright: Thinking Beyond Free Speech, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have often turned to the First Amendment to limit the scope of ever-expanding copyright law. This approach has mostly failed to convince courts that independent review is merited and has offered little to individuals engaged in personal rather than political or cultural expression. In this Article, I consider the value of an alternative paradigm using the lens of substantive due process and liberty to evaluate users’ rights. A liberty-based approach uses this other developed body of constitutional law to demarcate justifiable personal, identity-based uses of copyrighted works. Uses that are essential for mental integrity, intimacy promotion, communication, or religious …

Astrachan And Easton: Fight Wikileaks Case In Court, Not In Cyberspace, James B. Astrachan, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What The Abortion Disclosure Cases Say About The Constitutionality Of Persuasive Government Speech On Product Labels, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary On Larry Flynt's Role In The Free Speech Debate, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

Citizens United And The Corporate Form, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning direct corporate expenditures on political campaigns. The decision has been widely criticized and praised as a matter of First Amendment law. But it is also interesting as another step in the evolution of our legal views of the corporation. This Article argues that by viewing Citizens Unitedthrough the prism of theories about the corporate form, it is possible to see that the majority and the dissent departed from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of corporations. It is also possible to then predict …

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

Speech Platforms Law Review Symposium 2010: Government Speech: The Government's Ability To Compel And Restrict Speech, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The state plays different roles, and free speech doctrine should (and sometimes does) respect these roles. We properly insist (with some categorical exceptions) that the state not regulate private speech based on subject matter or point of view. If private speakers want to praise the Nazis or condemn homosexuality, the state has no place stopping them, even if firmly convinced these ideas are wrong. Why we have such firm protection for speech we abhor is a matter of much debate. To some extent, it's because we don't trust the state to make content-based judgments consistently as a matter of principle; …

Educating The United States Supreme Court At Summers' School: A Lesson On The "Special Character Of The Animal", Rafael Gely, Ramona L. Paetzold, Leonard Bierman

Faculty Publications

In this article, we explore the implications that Professor Summers' insights regarding public employment have for the Garcetti and Davenport decisions. In particular, we focus on the extent to which the political nature of public employment affects public employees' rights to freedom of speech as well as matters regarding the representational functions of public employee unions.

Cyberspace Is Outside The Schoolhouse Gate: Offensive, Online Student Speech Receives First Amendment Protection, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Normative and doctrinal analysis shows that schools do not possess jurisdiction over offensive online student speech, at least when it does not cause a substantial disruption of the school environment. This article is a timely analysis on the limits of school jurisdiction over offensive online student speech.

On February 4, 2010, two different Third Circuit panels issued opinions reaching opposite conclusions on whether schools may punish students based on online speech created by students when they are off-campus. The Third Circuit vacated both decisions and is considering these cases in a consolidated en banc appeal. Another case addressing the same …