Law Commons^™

Electronic Social Media: Friend Or Foe For Judges, M. Sue Kurita

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The use of electronic social communication has grown at a phenomenal rate. Facebook, the most popular social networking website, has over 1,968,000,000 users—a number that has exponentially grown since its inception in 2004. The number of judges accessing and using electronic social media (ESM) has also increased. However, unlike the general population, judges must consider constitutional, ethical, technical, and evidentiary implications when they use and access ESM. The First Amendment forbids “abridging the freedom of speech” and protects the expression of personal ideas, positions, and views. However, the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct and the Texas Code …

Memorandum, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This legal Memorandum on the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and written by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The Memorandum is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

4 p.

"The legislative history primarily identifies two issues that SB08-200 was designed to resolve: (1) the need for dignity and access to justice for LGBT people and …

Master File, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This Master File of the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and compiled by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The SB08-200 Master File is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

449 p.

Reforming State Laws On How Businesses Can Ban Guns: "No Guns" Signs, Property Rights, And The First Amendment, Christine M. Quinn

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Every state has different regulations regarding how businesses can ban guns. Some states mandate that specific signs be posted in specific places while other states say nothing on the issue. This Note first establishes that even under Heller and McDonald, private business owners have a right to control their private property, which includes a right to prohibit their customers from carrying firearms into their buildings. It then introduces some states’ requirements for “No Guns” signs and examines their weaknesses, particularly from a First Amendment, compelled speech perspective. The Note concludes that some current state regulations are ineffective, unclear, and outright …

Beyond The First Amendment: What The Evolution Of Maryland's Constitutional Free-Speech Guarantee Shows About Its Intended Breadth, Anthony W. Kraus

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Most Maryland lawyers are vaguely aware that Maryland's Declaration of Rights contains its own guarantee of free speech that is worded differently from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. What the Declaration of Rights actually says about free speech, however, and what can be inferred from its distinctive phrasing and legislative history, are not matters that have received much particularized attention. Decisions of Maryland's courts routinely state that Article 40 of the Declaration of Rights - the principal source of state free-speech rights - is construed in pari materia with the First Amendment, which, as a practical matter, …

Recent Development: Mitchell V. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin.: Vanity Licence Plates Constitute Private Speech In A Nonpublic Forum, Which Require Restrictions To Be Reasonable And Viewpoint Neutral, Sarah J. Jentilet

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Motor Vehicle Administration acted within constitutional boundaries when it recalled a vanity license plate displaying the word "MIERDA." Mitchell v. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin., 450 Md. 282, 288, 148 A.3d 319, 323 (2016). The court found that the message on a vanity plate is considered private speech in a nonpublic forum, and accordingly government speech restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Id.

In 2009, the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") issued vanity plates with the term "MIERDA" to John T. Mitchell ("Mitchell"). Two years later, Mitchell renewed the plates. Thereafter, the …

Ballot Selfies: Balancing The Right To Speak Out On Political Issues And The Right To Vote Free From Improper Influence And Coercion, Isidora Koutsoulias

Journal of Law and Policy

Courts and legislatures face the difficult task of balancing individual First Amendment rights with other basic freedoms, a task that has become increasingly challenging with the advent of new technology. The emergence of the ballot selfie has caused a legal uproar due to the perception that it may compromise the sanctity of the electoral process and the secret ballot process by facilitating vote buying and coercion. Consequently, several states have enacted laws that prohibit most or all ballot selfies. However, many individuals have rightfully protested these laws as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech. This Note argues that although …

Ballot Selfies: Balancing The Right To Speak Out On Political Issues And The Right To Vote Free From Improper Influence And Coercion, Isidora Koutsoulias

Journal of Law and Policy

Courts and legislatures face the difficult task of balancing individual First Amendment rights with other basic freedoms, a task that has become increasingly challenging with the advent of new technology. The emergence of the ballot selfie has caused a legal uproar due to the perception that it may compromise the sanctity of the electoral process and the secret ballot process by facilitating vote buying and coercion. Consequently, several states have enacted laws that prohibit most or all ballot selfies. However, many individuals have rightfully protested these laws as an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech. This Note argues that although …