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 …

In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner

Catholic University Law Review

In the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to …

Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.

The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005­–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.

Brooklyn Law Review

The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …

The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere

Brooklyn Law Review

What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora

Brooklyn Law Review

In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …

Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.

Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.

Revitalizing The Ban On Conversion Therapy: An Affirmation Of The Constitutionality Of Conversion Therapy Bans, Logan Kline

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Section 230 And The Problem Of Social Cost, Stanley M. Besen, Philip L. Verveer

Journal of Law and Policy

This Article employs, with certain modifications, the framework developed in Ronald Coase’s classic article, “The Problem of Social Cost,” to analyze the current debate over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This provision absolves interactive computer services, also known as platforms, from liability when they disseminate materials that cause “harm” to third parties, “harm” that can take the form of compensable damage of a sort found in ordinary tort cases but also can include broader injuries to social order and cohesion in the form of such things as hate speech and misinformation. The Article begins by pointing out that, …

The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev

Journal of Law and Policy

In this Article we reveal a dual dilemma, both material and institutional, that the Supreme Court in its current composition faces when reviewing liberal state court decisions based on the state constitution. The Article further describes substantive and procedural tactics that the Court adopts to address this dilemma, and illustrates the arguments by analyzing a number of recent Supreme Court decisions. The two dilemmas, the combination of which serve as a “power multiplier,” of sorts, have arisen following the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a solid majority of conservative Justices nominated by Republican presidents. One …

On The Outer Reaches Of The Marketplace Of Ideas: The Weaponization Of Title Vi Against Palestinian College Activists, Gavriella Fried

Journal of Law and Policy

On U.S. college campuses, Palestinian rights activists who are critical of Israel risk legal consequences. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal funds. Over the past two decades, at least eighteen Title VI complaints have been filed against U.S. colleges and universities, alleging that Palestinian rights activists’ political expression is a form of anti-Semitism. In December 2019, President Trump promulgated Executive Order 13,899, which formally extended Title VI protections to Jews and directed enforcement agencies to investigate allegations of anti-Semitism using guidance that includes …

Ridden With Controversy: Applying The Public Forum Doctrine To Public Transit Advertising, Remy T. B. Oliver

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note tackles the application of the First Amendment to public transit advertising. Under the current judicial framework, the First Amendment is filtered through the "public forum doctrine" when discussing the rights of citizens to utilize government property for expressive purposes. The Note will argue that public transit advertising constitutes a "designated public forum" in most (if not all) cases. That characterization would force any content-based restrictions to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The natural result is a significant expansion of access to public transit advertising by interested parties. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to …

The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Confronted every day with drastically increasing accounts of hate crimes and hate speech, nations’ legislators have routinely tried and subsequently failed to implement effective legislation capable of curbing the hatred epidemic currently sweeping the globe. This failure is due in large part to the lack of a universal stance on hate crime regulation and criminalization. Two countries in particular, the United States and Germany, embody two diametrically opposing approaches taken by nations in the present-day war on hate speech. This Note explores the dramatic dichotomy between the legislative framework surrounding the regulation of hate speech in these two countries. This …

Copystrikes And Meme Bans: Social Media And Copyright Protections In The Digital Age, Angelina Sanchez

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Social media is a pervasive and ever-present aspect of many peoples’ lives. Its use permeates nearly every aspect of our existence – there truly is an app for everything. Most notably, social media operates internationally both in scope and usage allowing for the creation of an astounding global society that shares cultures and perspectives in a way unprecedented in human history. Never before have societies been as interconnected as they are now. Unfortunately, such interconnectedness comes with the issue of globalizing enforcement of copyright laws. Infringement runs rampant online and forces creators to struggle against a seemingly faceless foe in …

Manipulation And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines new conceptual tools for understanding manipulation and its harms. More specifically, Part I draws from ethicists' insights to explain how manipulation can inflict harms distinct from those imposed by coercion and deception, and to explain why addressing these distinct harms is a government interest sufficiently strong to justify appropriately tailored interventions.

Part II explores how these conceptual tools also help us understand when, how, and why government can regulate manipulation consistent with the First Amendment. As a threshold matter, note that manipulative online interfaces and related design choices may be better understood as conduct, rather than speech …

Speech Regulation By Algorithm, Enrique Armijo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The rapid convergence of speech and technology on social media platforms means it is likely the case that, either now or soon, more expressive activity will be regulated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) than by any legislature, regulator, or other government entity. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly told Congress and other audiences that AI is the key to resolving Facebook's content moderation challenges, envisioning a moderation regime where algorithms detect and take down speech infringing Facebook's Community Standards ex ante, that is, prior to its public posting and before it reaches other users. According to Zuckerberg, this would eventually replace its initial …

You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue

Washington Law Review

United States common law provides four torts for privacy invasion: (1) disclosure of private facts, (2) intrusion upon seclusion, (3) placement of a person in a false light, and (4) appropriation of name or likeness. Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when a defendant commandeers the plaintiff’s recognizability, typically for a commercial benefit. Most states allow plaintiffs who establish liability to recover defendants’ profits as damages from the misappropriation under an “unjust enrichment” theory. By contrast, this Comment argues that such an award provides a windfall to plaintiffs and contributes to suboptimal social outcomes. These include overcompensating plaintiffs and incentivizing …

Deepfake Privacy: Attitudes And Regulation, Matthew B. Kugler, Carly Pace

Northwestern University Law Review

Using only a series of images of a person’s face and publicly available software, it is now possible to insert the person’s likeness into a video and show them saying or doing almost anything. This “deepfake” technology has permitted an explosion of political satire and, especially, fake pornography. Several states have already passed laws regulating deepfakes, and more are poised to do so. This Article presents three novel empirical studies that assess public attitudes toward this new technology. In our main study, a representative sample of the U.S. adult population perceived nonconsensually created pornographic deepfake videos as extremely harmful and …

Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

The Thirteenth Amendment And One Hundred And Fifty Years Of Struggle To Criminalize Slavery: A First Amendment Challenge To The Forced Labor Act (18 U.S.C. § 1589), Niles Stefan Illich

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Choose Your Words Carefully: Reimagining Retaliatory Arrest After Nieves V. Bartlett, Ryan Hor

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2020, the United States experienced potentially its largest ever social movement in the protests against racial inequality. Predictably, protestors clashed with law enforcement officers, often leading to arrests. Arrested individuals could bring § 1983 retaliatory arrest claims alleging that the officers deprived them of their First Amendment right to free speech. Such claims underline the tension between two vital interests: free speech and law enforcement effectiveness. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Nieves v. Bartlett, which crafted a new framework for retaliatory arrest claims that consequently diminished a plaintiff’s chance to prevail and recover …

Media Consolidation & Political Polarization: Reviewing The National Television Ownership Rule, Mary R. Hornak

Fordham Law Review

Local television plays an important role in the democratic society. The medium is viewed as being trustworthy, and it is accessible and uniquely situated to report on matters of local interest. Among other roles, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates firms’ ownership interests in the media through regulations that permit a certain degree of consolidation at both the local and national levels. Since 1996, Congress has mandated that the FCC regularly review broadcast media ownership regulations. Originally, this requirement mandated biennial review. In 2004, however, Congress revised the mandate, requiring review on a quadrennial basis and excluding from such review …

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 …

Model Rule 8.4(G) And The Profession’S Core Values Problem, Michael Ariens

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Model Rule 8.4(g) declares it misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the rule in 2016 in large part to effectuate the third of its four mission goals: Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity. The ABA adopted these goals in 2008, and they continue to serve as ABA’s statement of its mission.

A …

Lgbtqia+ Public Accomodation Cases: The Battle Between Religious Freedom And Civil Rights, Jamie Reinah

Fordham Law Review

Protections for LGBTQIA+ Americans have greatly expanded since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, but the debate about whether business owners can refuse to serve LGBTQIA+ couples on religious grounds has grown more bitterly divided. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental constitutional right, and it is strongly protected at both the federal and state levels. At the same time, LGBTQIA+ couples are protected from receiving unequal treatment in public places under state antidiscrimination laws. The clash between religion and LGBTQIA+ rights has culminated in a line of cases that present difficult questions …

Breathing Room For The Right Of Assembly, Tabatha Abu El-Haj

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article explores the legal and political fault lines that the wave of protests highlighting police violence and systemic racism in the summer of 2020 reveal. It focuses in depth on Detroit, Michigan, as a window into the ways that the First Amendment, as currently construed, under-protects those seeking political change and racial reckoning by demonstrating in the streets.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …