Law Commons^™

Punishing Sexual Fantasy, Andrew Gilden

William & Mary Law Review

The Internet has created unprecedented opportunities for adults and teenagers to explore their sexual identities, but it has also created new ways for the law to monitor and punish a diverse range of taboo sexual communication. A young mother loses custody of her two children due to sexually explicit Facebook conversations. A teenager is prosecuted for child pornography crimes after sending a naked selfie to her teenage boyfriend. An NYPD officer is convicted for conspiracy to kidnap several women based on conversations he had on a “dark fetish” fantasy website. In each of these cases, online sexual exploration and fantasy …

The Most Loved, Most Hated Magazine In America: The Rise And Demise Of Confidential Magazine, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Fissures, Fractures & Doctrinal Drifts: Paying The Price In First Amendment Jurisprudence For A Half Decade Of Avoidance, Minimalism & Partisanship, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article comprehensively examines how the U.S. Supreme Court’s adherence to principles of constitutional avoidance and judicial minimalism, along with partisan rifts among the Justices, have detrimentally affected multiple First Amendment doctrines over the past five years. The doctrines analyzed here include true threats, broadcast indecency, offensive expression, government speech, and strict scrutiny, as well as the fundamental dichotomy between content-based and contentneutral regulations.

Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Court’s campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.

As a normative matter, it argues that following …