Law Commons^™

Video Games And The First Amendment, Eli Pales

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

The video game industry is massive, with an annual revenue of $180 billion worldwide; $60 billion of that in America alone. For context, the industry’s size is greater than that of the movie, book, and music industries combined. Yet, despite this market dominance, the video game industry is relatively new. Only in the 2011 decision of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association did the Supreme Court extend First Amendment protection to games. Still, the Court failed to define the scope of the game medium. As understood by an average person, a video game could be something as simple as Pac-Man or …

Levels Of Free Speech Scrutiny, Alexander Tsesis

Indiana Law Journal

Inconsistencies abound throughout current exacting, strict, and most exacting scrutiny doctrines. Formalism also runs throughout recent cases that have opportunistically relied on the First Amendment in matters peripherally concerned with core principles of free speech. Jurisprudence that relies on the exacting scrutiny standard remains significantly under-theorized. The uncertainty creates doctrinal flux that shifts from case-to-case. The same unexplained malleability appears in the most exacting scrutiny jurisprudence. The Court, moreover, sometimes refers to these two standards as equivalent to strict scrutiny. On the other hand, during the last decade, and most recently in 2021, various opinions have also used exacting scrutiny …

Rectifying An Empty Gesture: Why Placement On Paid Administrative Leave Should Constitute "Adverse Employment Action" For The Purposes Of A First Amendment Retaliation Claim, Andrew White

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Censorship Constraint And Rulemaker State Action: Are Section 230'S Immunity Provisions Unconstitutional Content-Based Regulations?, Scot A. Reader

West Virginia Law Review

Even casual watchers of T.V. crime dramas understand the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. Under this rule, evidence obtained by the police in a search of a criminal suspect’s premises that exceeds the scope of a judicial warrant is almost always inadmissible in the suspect’s criminal trial. The rule is designed to deter unreasonable governmental intrusion into private affairs and applies without regard for the suspect’s guilt or innocence. This Article proposes that the First Amendment includes an analogous rule against governmental censorship. Under this rule, content-based speech regulations exceed the legislature’s speech rulemaking warrant and are almost always invalid. This …

“Alexa, Am I A Murderer?”: An Analysis Of Whether The First Amendment Protects Smart Speaker Communications, Josie A. Bates

Arkansas Law Review

State v. Bates poses interesting First Amendment questions that go far beyond the case itself, such as whether communications to and from smart speakers are protected under the First Amendment and, if so, whether the government must therefore meet a heightened standard before obtaining information from these devices. But currently, there are no definite answers. Thus, this analysis will attempt to answer these questions as well as offer general guidance for the future of First and Fourth Amendment law in the age of ever-changing technological advancements and never-ending criminal accusations.

Comrades Or Foes: Did The Chinese Break The Law Or New Ground Ground For The First Amendment, Artem M. Joukov

West Virginia Law Review

Prior to exiting the White House, President Trump placed a variety of restrictions on Chinese-owned social media applications, TikTok and WeChat, threatening to greatly curtail their influence in the United States. While couching his actions in the context of national security, the former president engaged in viewpoint discrimination in plain violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rulings in favor of TikTok and WeChat were encouraging and should stem the tide of future government regulations of social media platforms. This article discusses how the decisions fit into the greater context of First Amendment jurisprudence and …

How Scotus's Recent Decision On The Cheerleader Case Impacts Public School Students' Due Process Rights For Their Off-Campus Conduct, Abby Efron

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Revisiting Employment Division V. Smith, Blaine L. Hutchison

University of Cincinnati Law Review

The Supreme Court wrongly decided Employment Division v. Smith. Without briefing or argument over the Free Exercise Clause’s meaning, Smith eliminated the constitutional right to exercise religion and replaced it with an equal protection rule. The decision threatens religious freedom and encourages conflict. The Supreme Court should revisit Smith. This article shows that the majority’s arguments in Smith fail and contradict the Free Exercise Clause’s text, purpose, and original meaning.

The Smith majority gave no sound legal or policy reason for its decision. Indeed, the decision conflicted with settled precedents that no party questioned. Nor did it determine …

The First Amendment And Military Justice: Threats To Political Neutrality, Joshua Paldino

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This backdrop illustrates a throughline that runs throughout, and creates tension within, the Military Justice system. On the one hand, there is a need to protect the individual rights of servicemembers. This concern is driven (in part) by the intuition reflected in Judge O’Connor’s opening sentences—those sworn to protect constitutional liberties should surely enjoy the benefits of that which they protect. On the other, individual rights protections must yield, to some degree, to the needs of military life and military exigency. Of course, "to some degree" is the space in which debate and maneuverability resides. But while discretionary space certainly …

The First Amendment And Online Access To Information About Abortion: The Constitutional And Technological Problems With Censorship, John Villasenor

Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property

To what extent could an abortion-restrictive state impede access to online information about abortion? After Dobbs, this question is no longer theoretical. This essay engages with this issue from both a legal and technological perspective, analyzing First Amendment jurisprudence as well as the technological implications of state-level online censorship. It concludes that the weight of Supreme Court precedent indicates that state attempts to censor information regarding out-of-state abortion services would violate the First Amendment. That said, the essay also recognizes that as Dobbs itself upended precedent, it is unclear what Supreme Court would do when ruling on questions regarding …

The Connick/Garcetti Split: Is Public Employee Association A Matter Of Public Concern?, Austin J. Wishart

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fighting Words Today, R. George Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

For some time, the familiar free speech exception known as the “fighting words” doctrine has been subject to severe judicial and scholarly critique. It turns out, though, that the fighting words doctrine, in general, is neither obsolete nor in need of radical limitation. The traditionally neglected “inflict injury” prong of the fighting words doctrine can and should be vitalized, with only a minimal loss, if not an actual net gain, in promoting the basic purposes of freedom of speech in the first place. And the “reactive violence” prong can and should be relieved of its historic biases and dubious assumptions. …

Religious Freedom Vs. Compelled Vaccination: A Case-Study Of The 2018-2019 Measles Pandemic Or The Law As A Public Health Response, Barbara Pfeffer Billauer Esq.

Catholic University Law Review

Following the recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo,^[1] clear guidance regarding the state’s powers to act during a pandemic is wanting. I look here to the 2018–2019 global measles epidemic, with a focus on the New York and Israeli experiences, for that guidance. Measles rates increased dramatically during the 2018–2019 season, both in the United States and globally. This phenomenon reflects a general decline in worldwide vaccination and an increase in vaccine resistance stoked by anti-vax groups. In the United States, the epidemic targeted ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, as it did in Israel. This Article evaluates the …

Reckless Abandon: The Shadow Of Model Rule 8.4(G) And A Path Forward, Margaret Tarkington

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In August 2016, the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Board of Governors approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.4(g) as a model for state adoption. The Rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” Curbing harassment and discrimination is a critically important goal. However, the actual Rule as promulgated reaches far beyond prohibiting sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Instead the comments to the Rule define discrimination and harassment broadly to prohibit speech …

The Local Community Standard: Modernizing The Supreme Court's Obscenity Jurisprudence, Jacob S. Gordon

Helm's School of Government Conference

Paper presentation on the Supreme Court's outdated case law on obscenity and how it needs to be modernized to in order to combat the dissemination of inappropriate materials in the age of decentralized digital media.

Aba Model Rule 8.4(G), Discriminatory Speech, And The First Amendment, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4(g), which targets certain speech and conduct that are based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” In particular, according to the accompanying comment, Rule 8.4(g) reaches speech that is “derogatory and demeaning” or that “manifests bias or prejudice towards others” and is “harmful” (including, presumably, emotionally harmful). This rule targets a significant amount of speech that would be constitutionally protected if it were uttered by a nonlawyer. This article argues that there is no justification for treating lawyers differently from others in many …

Republication Liability On The Web, Jeffrey Standen

Marquette Law Review

The tort of defamation evolved in an era where defamatory speech was published in books, magazines, newspapers, or other printed documents. The doctrines that are antecedent to the tort, such as publication, fault, defamation per se, presumed damages, and republication liability, similarly presumed that most defamation would appear in written form in a published work. Similarly, the significant limitations on defamation liability that were produced by a succession of Supreme Court constitutional precedent, including restrictions on prior restraint, heightened fault standards, expanded “public” classes, the “fact/opinion” dichotomy, and the “truth/substantial truth” burden shifting, also were based on a publishing world …

Distrust, Negative First Amendment Theory, And The Regulation Of Lies, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the relationship between “negative” First Amendment theory—rooted in distrust of the government’s potential for regulatory abuse—and the government’s regulation of lies. Negative First Amendment theory explains why many lies are protected from governmental regulation—even when the regulation neither punishes nor chills valuable speech (as was the case, for example, of the statute at issue in United States v. Alvarez). But negative theory, like any theory, also needs limiting principles that explain when the government’s regulation is constitutionally justifiable.

In my view, we engage in the principled application of negative theory when we invoke it in (the …

A Framework For Thinking About The Government’S Speech And The Constitution, Helen Norton

Publications

This Essay sketches a framework for mapping and navigating the constitutional implications of the government’s speech—and then illustrates this framework’s application to some contemporary constitutional disputes. My hope is that this framework will help us sort through the constitutional puzzles triggered by the government’s expressive choices—puzzles that confront courts and policymakers with increasing frequency. What I call “first-stage government speech questions” require us to determine when the government is speaking itself and when it is instead (or also) regulating others’ speech. This determination matters because the rules that apply to the government as speaker are very different from those that …

New: First Amendment Battles Over-Anti-Deplatforming Statutes: Examining Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo's Relevance For Today's Online Social Media Platform Cases, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Florida adopted a statute in 2021 barring large social media sites from deplatforming-removing from their sites-candidates running for state and local office. Soon thereafter, Texas adopted its own anti-deplatforming statute. A trade association representing several major social media companies is now challenging the laws in federal court for violating the platforms' First Amendment speech rights. A central issue in both NetChoice, LLC v. Moody (targeting Florida's statute) and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton (attacking Texas's law) is the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 decision in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo. In Tornillo, the Court struck down a Florida …

Attorney-Fee Shifting Is The Solution To Slapping Meritless Claims Out Of Federal Court, Gleisy Sopena

FIU Law Review

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”) are meritless claims brought against individuals or corporations to silence them for exercising protected speech under the First Amendment. In response to the chilling effects of these SLAPPsuits, State legislatures have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to quickly dismiss these meritless claims and protect the targets of these suits. These anti-SLAPP statutes have two prominent components: a special motion to dismiss and an attorney fee-shifting provision that is dependent on prevailing on the special motion set forth in the statute. Federal courts sitting in diversity are divided over whether the special motion standards set forth in …

A First Amendment Law For Migrant Emancipation, Daniel Morales

Georgia Law Review

The First Amendment promises to change our world, but like any legal doctrine, its radical potential is stymied by the status quo bias of the legal system that administers it. For migrants, I urge here, this guarantor of free speech and expression does even less than it does for other subordinated groups. The formal and informal disabilities that migrants face in the public square—like the omnipresent threat of deportation—make existing First Amendment doctrine a weak and unreliable ally in the fight for migrants’ rights. It is possible to imagine another, emancipatory First Amendment law that might better facilitate the alteration …

Tinkering With The Schoolhouse Gate: The Future Of Student Speech After Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L., Victoria R. Bonds

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

When the Supreme Court last created a rule about students’ First Amendment rights, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. Students’ use of social media and technology has radically changed since then, and it is time the First Amendment case law reflects that. With the transition to online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic and overall increased reliance on technology, students need clear answers about when school officials can punish them for their social media posts.

The Supreme Court had a chance to clarify First Amendment student speech law this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., but …

The “Liberty Of Silence” Challenging State Legislation That Strips Municipalities Of Authority To Remove Confederate Monuments, Roger C. Hartley

FIU Law Review

There are roughly 700 Confederate monuments still standing in courthouse lawns, parks, and downtown squares in virtually every city, town, and village throughout the “Old South.” Most of these Confederate monuments are located in states that have enacted legislation that bans the removal of Confederate monuments. Such legislative bans are in effect in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Legislation that bans removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces poses a racial justice issue for millions of residents in these states because it forces political majorities in Southern communities (many constituting majority-minority communities) to host a …

Las Medidas De “Acomodación” De La Religión En El Derecho Estadounidense [Accommodation Of Religion In U.S. Law], Michael W. Mcconnell, Nathan Chapman

Scholarly Works

En este trabajo se analizan las medidas de acomodación de la religión, que gozan de una gran tradición en el derecho constitucional de los Estados Unidos, así como los debates que han generado desde el punto de vista de su conformidad con las cláusulas de la Primera Enmienda de la Constitución de los Estados Unidos: la cláusula de no establecimiento de una religión oficial y la cláusula de libre ejercicio de la religión. A lo largo del trabajo se analiza la principal jurisprudencia recaída sobre las medidas de acomodación y los test que se han construido para enjuiciarlas.

[This paper …

Education Is Speech: Parental Free Speech In Education, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Education is speech. This simple point is profoundly important. Yet it rarely gets attention in the First Amendment and education scholarship.

Among the implications are those for public schools. All the states require parents to educate their minor children and at the same time offer parents educational support in the form of state schooling. States thereby press parents to take government educational speech in place of their own. Under both the federal and state speech guarantees, states cannot pressure parents, either directly or through conditions, to give up their own educational speech, let alone substitute state educational speech. This abridges …

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.