Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Medium-Specific Regulation Of Attorney Advertising: A Critique, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Tera Jckowski Peterson
Medium-Specific Regulation Of Attorney Advertising: A Critique, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Tera Jckowski Peterson
Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added a "licensing" scheme for attorney advertising on television or radio to its existing panoply of attorney advertising regulations. The new rule imposes a prior restraint on all radio and television ads by Florida attorneys: every ad must run the gauntlet of the Bar's censors prior to airing, and the ad may not air unless its content meets with the approval of the censors. Not content with its foray into regulating the broadcast medium, the Florida Supreme Court is now poised to add a rule that will regulate attorney speech on the Internet much …
Public Forum 2.1: Public Higher Education Institutions And Social Media, Robert H. Jerry Ii, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Public Forum 2.1: Public Higher Education Institutions And Social Media, Robert H. Jerry Ii, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Like most of us, public colleges and universities increasingly are communicating via Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Twitter and other social media. Unlike most of us, public colleges and universities are government actors, and their social media communications present complex administrative and First Amendment challenges. The authors of this article — one the dean of a major public university law school responsible for directing its social media strategies, the other a scholar of social media and the First Amendment — have combined their expertise to help public university officials address these challenges. To that end, this article first examines current and …
Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Silencing John Doe: Defamation & Discourse In Cyberspace, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky
John Doe has become a popular defamation defendant as corporations and their officers bring defamation suits for statements made about them in Internet discussion fora. These new suits are not even arguably about recovering money damages but instead are brought for symbolic reasons-some worthy, some not so worthy. If the only consequence of these suits were that Internet users were held accountable for their speech, the suits would be an unalloyed good. However, these suits threaten to suppress legitimate criticism along with intentional and reckless falsehoods, and existing First Amendment law doctrines are not responsive to the threat these suits …