Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen
Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen
Indiana Law Journal
Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill
Indiana Law Journal
Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …
Dissent, Free Speech, And The Continuing Search For The "Central Meaning" Of The First Amendment, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.
Dissent, Free Speech, And The Continuing Search For The "Central Meaning" Of The First Amendment, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Since the Warren Court's expansive construction of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, there has been no shortage of legal scholarship aimed at justifying the remarkably broad protections afforded the freedom of speech under landmark cases such as Brandenburg v. Ohio, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. At the same time, in recent years, a growing chorus of free speech skeptics have made their voices heard.5 These legal scholars have questioned why a commitment to freedom of expression should displace other (constitutional) values such as equality, …
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler
Michigan Law Review
The Bill of Rights, by means of open-ended terms such as "freedom of speech," "equal protection," or "due process," refers to moral criteria, which take on constitutional status by virtue of being thus referenced. We can disagree about whether the proper methodology for judicial application of these criteria is originalist or nonoriginalist. The originalist looks, not to the true content of the moral criteria named by the Constitution, but to the framers' beliefs about that content; the nonoriginalist tries to determine what the criteria truly require, and ignores or gives less weight to the framers' views. Bracketing this disagreement, however, …