Law Commons^™

Compelled Unionism In The Private Sector After Janus: Why Unions Should Not Profit From Dissenting Employees, Giovanna Bonafede

Catholic University Law Review

This Note examines the impact of the 2018 landmark labor law case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus held it unconstitutional under the First Amendment to require public sector employees to pay fees to a union to which they are not a member. The Supreme Court based their decision on the idea that compelling public employees to subsidize union speech to which they disagreed violated their free speech rights. The author argues that the Court’s holding in Janus should be extended to protect the free speech rights of private sector employees through a finding of state action in the private unionized …

Political Equality And First Amendment Challenges To Labor Law, Luke Taylor

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This Article conceptualizes a novel basis for defending laws that strengthen labor unions from First Amendment challenge: the argument that these laws are adequately tailored to advancing a compelling state interest in reducing economic inequality’s transmission into political inequality. The Article makes two principal contributions. First, it updates criticisms of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions’ rejection of any compelling interest sounding in political equality. The Article does so by bringing recent constitutional scholarship to bear on that criticism and by explaining how recent improvements in social scientists’ ability to track different economic brackets’ political influence call for the Court …

Free Speech Has Gotten Very Expensive: Rethinking Political Speech Regulation In A Post-Truth World, John A. Barrett, Jr.

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Protecting free speech has been a foundational principle of American democracy since the nation’s founding. A core element of free speech has long been a prohibition on regulating political speech. The principle behind this protection holds that citizens are free to make whatever political pronouncements they wish and that their speech shall remain free from government suppression. Even within the limited exceptions to unfettered political speech, like defamation or libel, the speech is not banned but may merely result in liability. A premise underlying this view is that competing viewpoints, by being made available to us all, will allow …

Court Rejects Web Designer’S Challenge To Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech At Ursinus College, Benjamin Henwood

Business and Economics Summer Fellows

Freedom of speech is a hot topic issue on many college campuses across the United States. My research project’s goal is to find out how our community at Ursinus College feels about freedom of speech. My project is going to explore how well Ursinus holds itself to its standards of free and open inquiry and how the students on campus feel about free and open inquiry. In order to understand how the community feels about free speech on our campus, we borrowed a survey from the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education and distributed it to roughly half of the …

Putting A Gag On Farm Whistleblowers: The Right To Lie And The Right To Reamin Silent Confront State Agricultural Protectionism, Rita-Marie Cain Reid, Amber L. Kingery

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Whistleblowers play an important role in filling gaps in government food safety systems. Unfortunately, several dominant food-producing states have pursued legislative initiatives that punish farm whistleblowers and silence investigative tactics. First, this research describes various state legislative initiatives that curb criticism of agriculture. The work analyzes the federal food safety system and how these protections limiting agricultural criticism contravene that food safety net. Further, the research analyzes the free speech concerns in the newest protectionist laws. The analysis recommends strategies and future research to improve agricluture safety and protect free speech in an evolving food safety landscape.

Free Speech In The Balance: Judicial Sanctions And Frivolous Slapp Suits, Shine Sean Tu, Nicholas F. Stump

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The balance between free speech and access to courts in defamation tort actions is fraught with public policy concerns. On one hand, plaintiffs should have unencumbered access to the justice system to remedy real harms brought upon them by defamatory statements. However, defamation suits should not be wielded to suppress the constitutionally protected free speech rights of news organizations and of concerned citizens that are vital for well-functioning democracies. This Article argues for a new type of remedy, namely enhanced Rule 11 attorney sanctions, such as suspension or debarment, that should be available to defendants of defamation suits brought by …

Regulating The Political Wild West: State Efforts To Disclose Sources Of Online Political Advertising, Victoria Smith Ekstrand, Ashley Fox

Journal of Legislation

The problem of disinformation in online political advertising is growing, with ongoing and potential threats to campaigns coming from both within and outside the United States. Most scholarship in this area has focused on either disclosures and disclaimers under the proposed Honest Ads Act or other fixes aimed at a gridlocked Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). With federal reform at a standstill, states have jumped into the void. Between the 2016 presidential election and early 2020, eight states passed legislation to expressly regulate online political advertising for state candidates and ballot measures, including Maryland, whose state law was declared unconstitutional as …

Deplatformed: Social Network Censorship, The First Amendment, And The Argument To Amend Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act, John A. Lonigro

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Offensive Mark Owners Have An Enforcement Problem, Yvette Joy Liebesman

All Faculty Scholarship

In Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act 2(a) bars for "immoral" or "scandalous" marks are facially unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and thus violate a trademark owner’s First Amendment rights. Brunetti, as well as its predecessor, Matal v. Tam, focused entirely on how the government might generate viewpoint discrimination at the point of trademark registration. The Court did not consider whether enforcement of trademarks—via courts of law, Customs and Border Protection, or the International Trade Commission—is government speech, and thus exempt from First Amendment free speech scrutiny. Yet the Court’s seminal holding of Shelley v. Kraemer illustrates …

Book Review: The Cambridge Companion To The First Amendment And Religious Liberty, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

Review of The Cambridge Companion to The First Amendment and Religious Liberty. Edited by Michael D. Breidenbach and Owen Anderson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. xii + 461 pp. $39.99 paper.