Law Commons^™

Where Did My Privilege Go? Congress And Its Discretion To Ignore The Attorney-Client Privilege, Don Berthiaume, Jeffrey Ansley

Don R Berthiaume

“The right to counsel is too important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience or executive branch whimsy. It has been engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was adopted... However, the right to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by law.”[1] So said Senator Arlen Specter on February 13, 2009, just seven months before Congress chose to ignore the very privilege he lauded. Why then, if the right to counsel is as important as Senator Specter articulated, does Congress maintain …

Should Corporations Have First Amendment Rights?, Kent Greenfield, Daniel Greenwood, Erik Jaffe

Kent Greenfield

As Professor Winkler correctly stated, current doctrine emphasizes the rights of listeners rather than the identity of corporate speakers. My argument is, in effect, that this emphasis misses the key point. But I will not deal with listeners directly. I am simply going to assume, rather than argue, that if corporate advertising were ineffective in influencing voters or legislators, normal market processes would eliminate it. I'm going to take it for granted that when corporations speak, it makes a difference in the actual results.

Our Conflicting Judgements About Pornography, Kent Greenfield

Kent Greenfield

No abstract provided.

The Power Of Music: Applying First Amendment Scrutiny To Copyright Regulation Of Internet Radio, Amanda Reid

Amanda Reid

You Can Say That Again!: A Way Out Of The Compelled Commercial Speech Conundrum, Dayna B. Royal

Dayna B. Royal

In the last decade the Supreme Court has modified the compelled-speech and commercial-speech doctrines by creating a hybrid of the two—compelled-commercial speech. This nascent doctrine leaves unanswered serious questions about how it coexists with other doctrines in the First Amendment landscape.

This paper proposes a principled means to resolve these questions by drawing on an innovative behavioral-science theory called Cultural Cognition to provide a system for categorizing forced commercial-speech regulations. By establishing which test applies to determine whether regulations violate the First Amendment, this framework should help bring consistency and predictability into a murky area of First Amendment law.

Cultural Cognition As A Tool To Combat The Compelled-Commercial-Speech Conundrum, Dayna B. Royal

Dayna B. Royal

In the last decade the Supreme Court has modified the compelled-speech and commercial-speech doctrines by creating a hybrid of the two—compelled-commercial speech. This nascent doctrine leaves unanswered serious questions about how it coexists with other doctrines in the First Amendment landscape. This paper proposes a principled means to resolve these questions by drawing on an innovative behavioral-science theory called Cultural Cognition to provide a system for categorizing forced commercial-speech regulations. By establishing which test applies to determine whether regulations violate the First Amendment, this framework should help bring consistency and predictability into a murky area of First Amendment law.

Religious Freedom In Private Lawsuits: Untangling When Rfra Applies To Suits Involving Only Private Parties, Sara Lunsford Kohen

Sara Kohen

Religious Freedom in Private Lawsuits: Untangling When RFRA Applies to Suits Involving Only Private Parties, for publication discusses when courts should apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) in cases in which the federal government is not a party. Congress passed RFRA in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The Court held in Smith that the Constitution does not require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws—those that do not target religion and cover non-religious conduct to the same extent as religious conduct. By contrast, RFRA allows a federal law to substantially burden a religious …

Is Sexting The New Witchcraft? A Plea For A Common Sense Approach, John O. Hayward

John O. Hayward

Teenagers have enthusiastically embraced digital technology and its myriad assortment of electronic devices and gadgets. But unfortunately they often find themselves the target of numerous laws criminalizing their use. Sending sexy photos of themselves in various stages of undress to their favorite boyfriend or girlfriend earns them unwanted attention from school administrators as well as criminal complaints from the local district attorney accusing them of trafficking in child pornography! This article deals with “sexting,” the practice of “sending, receiving, or forwarding sexually explicit messages, photos, or images via cell phone, computer, or other digital device.” (The term is a combination …

Religious Freedom In Private Lawsuits: Untangling When Rfra Applies To Suits Involving Only Private Parties, Sara Lunsford Kohen

Sara Kohen

Religious Freedom in Private Lawsuits: Untangling When RFRA Applies to Suits Involving Only Private Parties, for publication discusses when courts should apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) in cases in which the federal government is not a party. Congress passed RFRA in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith. The Court held in Smith that the Constitution does not require religious exemptions from neutral, generally applicable laws—those that do not target religion and cover non-religious conduct to the same extent as religious conduct. By contrast, RFRA allows a federal law to substantially burden a religious …

Lawyering Decisions—October 2009 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Protects Crude Protest Of Police Action, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court Section 1983 Decisions: (October 2001 Term), Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

New York City Zones Out Free Expression, Martin A. Schwartz

Martin A. Schwartz

No abstract provided.

Untold Stories Of Goldman V. Weinberger: Religious Freedom Confronts Military Uniformity, Samuel J. Levine

Samuel J. Levine

In 1986, the United States Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision ruling that Air Force regulations prohibiting Simcha Goldman from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform did not violate Goldman’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The Court’s majority opinion, which accepted the government’s assertion that allowing Goldman to wear a yarmulke would unduly upset important military interests, drew unusually harsh responses from both dissenting justices and legal scholars. Yet, upon closer examination, perhaps what stands out most about the events surrounding the Goldman decision is the untold story of the case, which differs in significant …

Civility In Government Meetings: Balancing First Amendment, Reputational Interests, And Efficiency, Terri R. Day, Erin Bradford

Terri R. Day

This article addresses the issue of civility in local government meetings and the constitutional considerations for adopting rules of decorum. While not constitutionally guaranteed, the right of citizens to participate in public meetings can be created by state statute or judicial fiat. Once created, any restrictions placed on citizen speech are subject to constitutional dictates. Matters of local government business inflame passions; and public comment sessions can become explosive. When disruption occurs, presiding officials must act to silence citizens’ voices or eject them from public meetings, in ways that do not trample on First Amendment rights. In creating parameters that …

Civility In Government Meetings: Balancing First Amendment, Reputations Intests, And Efficiency, Terri R. Day, Erin Bradford

Terri R. Day

This article addresses the issue of civility in local government meetings and the constitutional considerations for adopting rules of decorum. While not constitutionally guaranteed, the right of citizens to participate in public meetings can be created by state statute or judicial fiat. Once created, any restrictions placed on citizen speech are subject to constitutional dictates. Matters of local government business inflame passions; and public comment sessions can become explosive. When disruption occurs, presiding officials must act to silence citizens’ voices or eject them from public meetings, in ways that do not trample on First Amendment rights. In creating parameters that …

Wikileaks Would Not Qualify To Claim Federal Reporter’S Privilege In Any Form, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

This article addresses whether WikiLeaks could claim a federal reporter’s privilege if the U.S. government or a U.S. entity tried to compel one of the site’s staff members to disclose the source(s) of any documents it has released. After exploring the origins of the First Amendment-based privilege, I argue that WikiLeaks would not be able to claim it. First, the website does not engage in investigative reporting. Second, it has not taken steps consistently to minimize harm. I also discuss congressional attempts to pass a federal shield law, paying special attention to H.R. 985 and S. 448, the two most …

The Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Religious Club’S Right To Meet On Public School Premises: Is This “Good News” For First Amendment Rights?, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Thomas A. Schweitzer

No abstract provided.

Bruce Ledewitz, American Religious Democracy: Coming To Terms With The End Of Secular Politics, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Thomas A. Schweitzer

No abstract provided.

The Progeny Of Lee V. Weisman: Can Student-Invited Prayer At Public School Graduation Still Be Constitutional?, Thomas A. Schweitzer

Thomas A. Schweitzer

No abstract provided.

Wikileaks, The First Amendment, And The Press, Jonathan Peters

Jonathan Peters

This article focuses on one question: When can the government, consonant with the First Amendment, punish the publication of classified information related to national security? To that end, Part I outlines the constitutional standards that could apply to such a prosecution of WikiLeaks. Part II discusses whether WikiLeaks is part of the press and whether that matters for constitutional purposes. Part III concludes by urging the Justice Department to consider carefully whether it should prosecute WikiLeaks.

From Four Part Tests To First Principles: Putting Free Speech Jurisprudence Into Perspective, Joshua D. Rosenberg, Joshua P. Davis

Joshua D. Rosenberg

Abstract

Those familiar with free speech jurisprudence know it as a complicated, contradictory, and incoherent agglomeration of hyper-technical three and four part tests. In this article, the authors look back at how each of these different doctrines and tests developed, the purposes it properly serves, and how it became unanchored from those purposes. We show that at bottom the Court approaches freedom of speech much as it does other constitutional rights. The ultimate issues it seeks to resolve are: (1) to what extent does government have a duty to avoid interfering with a speaker? (2) if government has a duty …

Property Rights To Information, Jamie Lund

Jamie Lund

Laws against defamation regulate information sharing by correcting misstatements of fact in order to protect reputations. One benefit of enforcement of defamation laws is the reduction of information pollution. Misinformation increases search costs and thereby reducing efficiency in the procurement of accurate information. First Amendment protection over false speech has expanded over the last half century, decreasing the occurrence of defamation suits, leaving the information field wide open for information pollution undeterred by defamation suits. The market for information has changed dramatically with the popularization of the Internet, the exponential growth of speakers in the past decade, and the corresponding …

First Amendment Architecture, Marvin Ammori

Marvin Ammori

The right to free speech is meaningless without some place to exercise it. But constitutional scholarship generally overlooks the role of judicial doctrines in ensuring the availability of spaces for speech. Indeed, when scholarship addresses doctrines that are explicitly concerned with speech spaces such as public forums and media or Internet forums, it generally marginalizes these doctrines as “exceptions” to standard First Amendment analysis. By overlooking or marginalizing these decisions, scholarship has failed to explicate the logic underlying important doctrinal areas and what these areas reveal about the First Amendment’s normative underpinnings.

This Article adopts a different interpretive approach. It …

Public Forum 2.0, Lyrissa Lidsky

Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

Social media have the potential to revolutionize discourse between American citizens and their governments. At present, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's public forum jurisprudence frustrates rather than fosters that potential. This article navigates the notoriously complex body of public forum doctrine to provide guidance for those who must develop or administer government-sponsored social media, or adjudicate First Amendment questions concerning them. Next, the article marks out a new path for public forum doctrine that will allow it to realize the potential of Web 2.0 technologies to enhance democratic discourse between the governors and the governed. Along the way, this article …

Copyright And The Vagueness Doctrine, Bradley E. Abruzzi

Bradley E Abruzzi

The Constitution’s void-for-vagueness doctrine is itself vaguely stated. The law does little to describe at what point vague laws — other than those that are entirely standardless — might be unconstitutionally vague. Rather than explore this territory, the Supreme Court has identified three “collateral factors” that affect its inclination to invalidate a law for vagueness, including (1) whether the law burdens the exercise of constitutional rights, (2) whether the law is punitive in nature, and (3) whether the law overlays a defendant-protective scienter requirement. Against this backdrop, it is fair to say that copyright law, in its current configuration, does …

Mill, Holmes, Brandeis, And A True Threat To Brandenburg, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

John Stuart Mill argues for robust protection of free speech, and some of the essential elements of that position reflect the protections advocated by Justices Holmes and Brandeis that were eventually incorporated in Brandenburg. However, Brandenburg protections have not been analyzed in light of the developing true threats jurisprudence, most recently described and employed in Virginia v. Black. After analyzing the positions of Mill, Holmes, and Brandeis and discussing true threats jurisprudence, this article concludes that unless the Court explains how to differentiate between advocacy and true threats and, further, identifies the extent to which the Constitution protects advocacy that …

Ten Years After: Bartnicki V. Vopper As A Laboratory For First Amendment Advocacy And Analysis, Eric B. Easton

Eric B Easton

Ten Years After: Bartnicki v. Vopper as a Laboratory for First Amendment Advocacy and Analysis is a retrospective article that focuses on the litigation process involved in that case and the differences among the district, circuit, and high court opinions. The district court case was a battle of controlling precedents, the circuit court case selected among established doctrinal choices, and the Supreme Court decision came down to a delicate balancing test between the values at issue. Beyond analyzing the decisions, the article also explores the influence of the principal players in the litigation: the excellent regional media lawyer who took …

"Put Colloquially, American Law Believes That Talking Out Prevents Acting Out." A First Amendment Primer, David D. Butler

David D. Butler

"Put Colloquially, American Law Believes that Talking Out Prevents Acting Out:" A Free Speech Primer argues that the Federal First Amendment, textually against Congress,and as incorporated by reference against the Several States, states a preference for (1) sanctioning harmful speech or expression in civil proceedings (2) rather than penalizing the speaker or actor in criminal prosecutions. The essay argues that whether in the 1988 theft of an unflattering painting of Chicago Mayor Harold Washington, titled "Mirth and Girth," by three Chicago aldermen from the Chicago Art Institute ranging to then president Clinton's perjury regarding his earlier sexual abuse of an …

The First Amendment And The Common Law Constitution, Chris Stangl

Chris Stangl

No abstract provided.