Law Commons^™

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

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 …

Locked Up, Shut Up: Why Speech In Prison Matters, Evan Bianchi, David Shapiro

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article proceeds in three Parts. Part I describes the deferential Turner standard that governs First Amendment claims brought by prisoners. Virtually every word uttered or written to a prisoner and virtually every word uttered or written by a prisoner receives extremely limited legal protection. Largely as a result of this legal regime, senseless censorship is all too common in American prisons. Jailers and prison officials seem to have received the message that they can ban speech with impunity.

Part II argues that the combination of Turner deference and mass incarceration divests prisoners of expressive power, thereby distorting public …

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 …

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 …

Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Talk Isn't Cheap: Protecting Freedom Of Speech In Light Of Georgia's Anti-Boycott Legislation, Maria Kachniarz

Georgia Law Review

Historically,political boycotts have occupied a central
place in American tradition, going as far back as the
Founding. However, the years of 2016 and 2017 have
marked a sudden influx of state anti-boycott legislation.
Georgia was no exception, passing a statute in 2016
prohibiting those who boycott Israel from contracting
with the state. This statue violates the FirstAmendment
guaranteesof freedom of speech. First, boycotts of Israel,
or BDS as they are collectively called, are protected
political speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
protected politically motivated boycotts, despite their
detrimental economic effects. Further, Georgia's anti-
boycott legislation impermissibly stifles that protected
speech …

Group Defamation, Power, And A New Test For Determining Plaintiff Eligibility, Jeffrey Greenwood

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

In the fall of 2014, Rolling Stone Magazine published an article describing the rape of a woman at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The story turned out to be false, and members of the fraternity sued for defamation. The suit raises an interesting question: under what circumstances may anonymous individual members of the fraternity recover? This Note describes the case, related common and constitutional law, as well as differences in group defamation doctrine across jurisdictions. After detailing problems with the existing paradigm, the Note proposes a new method for performing the analysis.

Defamation And Privacy In The Social Media Age: What Would Justice Brennan Think?, Stephen Wermiel

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

The New Governors: The People, Rules And Processes Governing Online Speech, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

Private online platforms have an increasingly essential role in free speech and participation in democratic culture. But while it might appear that any internet user can publish freely and instantly online, many platforms actively curate the content posted by their users. How and why these platforms operate to moderate speech is largely opaque.

This Article provides the first analysis of what these platforms are actually doing to moderate online speech under a regulatory and First Amendment framework. Drawing from original interviews, archived materials, and internal documents, this Article describes how three major online platforms — Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — …