Law Commons^™

When Free Speech And Free Enterprise Collide, Cathy Lewis, Timothy Zick, Joe Howell

Timothy Zick

It's been a month since comments by Chick-fil-A President and COO Dan Cathy galvanized some while incensing others, and amplified the nationwide conversation about marriage equality. Instead of revisiting the debate, HearSay host Cathy Lewis examines the complex interplay of civil and economic liberties that first fostered the controversy.

The First Amendment And The World, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment Protects Military Funeral Protests, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

Military funeral protests are offensive, but protected free speech.

The First Amendment In Trans-Border Perspective: Toward A More Cosmopolitan Orientation, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

This Article examines the First Amendment’s critical trans-border dimension—its application to speech, association, press, and religious activities that cross or occur beyond territorial borders. Judicial and scholarly analysis of this aspect of the First Amendment has been limited, at least as compared to consideration of more domestic or purely local concerns. This Article identifies two basic orientations with respect to the First Amendment—the provincial and the cosmopolitan. The provincial orientation, which is the traditional account, generally views the First Amendment rather narrowly—i.e., as a collection of local liberties or a set of limitations on domestic governance. First Amendment provincialism does …

Space, Place, And Speech: The Expressive Topography, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

No abstract provided.

Rights Dynamism, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

No abstract provided.

Professional Rights Speech, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

Some regulations of professional-client communications raise important, but sofar largely overlooked, constitutional concerns. Three recent examples of professional speech regulation-restrictions on physician inquiries regarding firearms, "reparative" therapy bans, and compelled abortion disclosures-highlight an important intersection between professional speech and constitutional rights. In each of the three examples, state regulations implicate a non-expressive constitutional right--the right to bear arms, equality, and abortion. States are actively, sometimes even aggressively, using their licensing authority to limit and structure conversations between professionals and their clients regarding constitutional rights. The author contends that government regulation of "professional rights speech" should be subjected to heightened First …

Practical Equality: Discussion With Author Robert L. Tsai, Timothy Zick, Robert L. Tsai

Timothy Zick

Professor Timothy Zick discusses a new book titled "Practical Equality: Forging Justice in a Divided Nation," with its author, Professor Robert L. Tsai of American University Washington College of Law. Timothy Zick is the John Marshall Professor of Government and Citizenship at William & Mary Law School. His scholarship has explored a wide variety of constitutional issues, with a special focus on the First Amendment. Robert L. Tsai is Professor of Law at American University and a prize-winning essayist in constitutional law and history. Recorded before a live audience at William & Mary Law School on March 14, 2019. The …

Objecting In The Open: Why Occupy Wall Street Chose Public Spaces, Timothy Zick

Timothy Zick

No abstract provided.

Limitations On Corporate Speech: Protection For Shareholders Or Abridgement Of Expression?, Alan J. Meese

Alan J. Meese

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Defamation In Illinois After Colson V. Steig And Chapski V. Copley Press, Inc., Linda A. Malone, Rodney A. Smolla

Linda A. Malone

No abstract provided.

The Public's Domain In Trademark Law: A First Amendment Theory Of The Consumer, Laura A. Heymann

Laura A. Heymann

No abstract provided.

Peaches, Speech, And Clarence Thomas: Yes, California, There Is A Justice Who Understands The Ramifications Of Controlling Commercial Speech, Jennifer R. Franklin

Jennifer R. Franklin

No abstract provided.

Trust And Retaliation: The First Amendment And Trump’S Taxes, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The President’S Utterly Un-American Response To Dissent, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Broken Platforms, Broken Communities? Free Speech On Campus, Stephen M. Feldman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Free speech disputes have broken out on numerous college and university campuses. In several incidents, protesters have attempted to block the presentations of well-known and controversial speakers who threaten the communal status of societal outsiders. These events have sparked not only widespread media coverage but also the publication of multiple scholarly books and articles. None of this scholarship, however, has recognized that the interrelated histories of free expression and democracy can shed considerable light on these matters. This Article takes on that challenge. Specifically, this Article explores the ramifications of the historical interrelationship between free expression and democracy for campus …

Antitrust As Speech Control, Hillary Greene, Dennis A. Yao

William & Mary Law Review

Antitrust law, at times, dictates who, when, and about what people can and cannot speak. It would seem then that the First Amendment might have something to say about those constraints. And it does, though perhaps less directly and to a lesser degree than one might expect. This Article examines the interface between those regimes while recasting antitrust thinking in terms of speech control.

Our review of the antitrust-First Amendment legal landscape focuses on the role of speech control. It reveals that while First Amendment issues are explicitly addressed relatively infrequently within antitrust decisions that is, in part, because certain …

Merging Offensive-Speech Cases With Viewpoint-Discrimination Principles: The Immediate Impact Of Matal V. Tam On Two Strands Of First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines flaws with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam that equated giving offense with viewpoint discrimination. Already, the Court’s language in Tam that “giving offense is a viewpoint” is being cited by multiple lower courts. This Article argues, however, that giving offense is not synonymous with viewpoint discrimination. This Article contends that the Court in Tam conflated two distinct strands of First Amendment jurisprudence—namely, its offensive-speech cases with principles against viewpoint discrimination. The Article proposes two possible paths forward to help courts better clarify when a case such as Tam should be analyzed as …

The Itunes Of Downloadable Guns: Firearms As A First Amendment Right, Sandra Sawan Lara

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

As society becomes more technology driven, legal issues continue to arise around the world. From privacy to national security, technology develops at a rate the law simply cannot keep up with. In the United States, one of the biggest legal issues is how the new risks technology brings will interfere with our individual liberties.

Technologies like three-dimensional (“3D”) printing have transformed everything from lifesaving surgeries to gun manufacturing. This technology has led to a whole new way of communicating via computer coding, with the online open source movement leading innovation by allowing for the sharing and editing of files freely. …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …

Locked Up, Shut Up: Why Speech In Prison Matters, Evan Bianchi, David Shapiro

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article proceeds in three Parts. Part I describes the deferential Turner standard that governs First Amendment claims brought by prisoners. Virtually every word uttered or written to a prisoner and virtually every word uttered or written by a prisoner receives extremely limited legal protection. Largely as a result of this legal regime, senseless censorship is all too common in American prisons. Jailers and prison officials seem to have received the message that they can ban speech with impunity.

Part II argues that the combination of Turner deference and mass incarceration divests prisoners of expressive power, thereby distorting public …

Managing Dissent, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

In his insightful new book, Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment (2017), Professor Greg Magarian criticizes the Roberts Court for adopting a "managed speech" approach in its First Amendment cases. According to Professor Magarian, that approach gives too much power to private and governmental actors to manage public discourse, constrain dissident speakers, and instill social and political stability. This Article argues that at least insofar as it relates to many forms of public dissent, the managed speech approach is both deeply rooted in First Amendment jurisprudence and culturally prevalent. Historically, First Amendment jurisprudence has expressed support for narrowly managed …

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …

Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The New Governors: The People, Rules And Processes Governing Online Speech, Kate Klonick

Faculty Publications

Private online platforms have an increasingly essential role in free speech and participation in democratic culture. But while it might appear that any internet user can publish freely and instantly online, many platforms actively curate the content posted by their users. How and why these platforms operate to moderate speech is largely opaque.

This Article provides the first analysis of what these platforms are actually doing to moderate online speech under a regulatory and First Amendment framework. Drawing from original interviews, archived materials, and internal documents, this Article describes how three major online platforms — Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — …

Talk Isn't Cheap: Protecting Freedom Of Speech In Light Of Georgia's Anti-Boycott Legislation, Maria Kachniarz

Georgia Law Review

Historically,political boycotts have occupied a central
place in American tradition, going as far back as the
Founding. However, the years of 2016 and 2017 have
marked a sudden influx of state anti-boycott legislation.
Georgia was no exception, passing a statute in 2016
prohibiting those who boycott Israel from contracting
with the state. This statue violates the FirstAmendment
guaranteesof freedom of speech. First, boycotts of Israel,
or BDS as they are collectively called, are protected
political speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
protected politically motivated boycotts, despite their
detrimental economic effects. Further, Georgia's anti-
boycott legislation impermissibly stifles that protected
speech …

Group Defamation, Power, And A New Test For Determining Plaintiff Eligibility, Jeffrey Greenwood

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

In the fall of 2014, Rolling Stone Magazine published an article describing the rape of a woman at a University of Virginia fraternity house. The story turned out to be false, and members of the fraternity sued for defamation. The suit raises an interesting question: under what circumstances may anonymous individual members of the fraternity recover? This Note describes the case, related common and constitutional law, as well as differences in group defamation doctrine across jurisdictions. After detailing problems with the existing paradigm, the Note proposes a new method for performing the analysis.

Defamation And Privacy In The Social Media Age: What Would Justice Brennan Think?, Stephen Wermiel

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

No abstract provided.

Protecting The Silence Of Speech: Academic Safe Spaces, The Free Speech Critique, And The Solution Of Free Association, Trevor N. Ward

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.