Law Commons^™

The Worst Test Of Truth: The "Marketplace Of Ideas" As Faulty Metaphor, Thomas W. Joo

Thomas W Joo

In his famous dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes proclaimed that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” This Article critiques the basic argument against speech regulation that has developed from the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor: that speech should be “free” because markets are “free,” and because free markets produce “truth.” These assertions about markets are taken for granted, but they portray markets and market regulation inaccurately; thus economic markets provide a poor analogy for the deregulation of speech.

First Amendment jurisprudence invokes the …

Begging To Be Constitutional, Magali Sanders

Magali J Sanders

This comment argues that a City of Miami ordinance prohibiting begging, soliciting, and panhandling in the Downtown business district is constitutional because it is aimed at combating the secondary effects of soliciting. Traditionally, courts have analyzed content-based and content-neutral speech restrictions using strict and intermediate scrutiny tests, respectively.

This comment urges courts to use the secondary effects test applied in City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., where the court upheld a zoning ordinance prohibiting adult movie theatres from locating within a certain distance of residential homes. The court focused on the purpose of the ordinance, which was to …

Lessons From The Dolphins/Richie Incognito Saga, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

On Business Torts And The First Amendment, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

A gaping question in free speech law surrounds the application of the First Amendment defense in business torts. The pervasiveness of communication technologies, the flourishing of privacy law, and the mere passage of time have precipitated an escalation in tort cases in which communication, and what the defendant may allege is free speech, lies at the heart of the matter.

The New American Privacy, Richard J. Peltz-Steele

Faculty Publications

The European Union sparked an intercontinental furor last year with proposed legislation to supersede the 1995 Data Protection Directive (DPD). The EU Parliament approved legislation in a 49-3 committee vote in October. The text, which is not yet published in its current draft at the time of this writing, may yet be amended before being accepted by the union’s 28 member states. The legislation is billed a money saver because it would harmonize EU member states’ data protection laws, which have diverged under the DPD umbrella. The business community is not convinced, fearful that costly new demands will strain balance …

In Tort Pursuit Of Mass Media: Big Tobacco, Big Banks, And Their Big Secrets, Richard J. Peltz-Steele, Eric J. Booth

Faculty Publications

This article examines potential civil liability under the multistate norms of tort and closely related areas in the common law of the United States for the mass media re-publisher of leaked corporate secrets. The examination employs two fact patterns derived from real cases: one, contemporary, an international bank's grievance, never resolved on the merits in court, against the online publisher WikiLeaks; and second, conventional, a tobacco manufacturer's grievance, feared but never filed, against the television newsmagazine 60 Minutes. The study assumes jurisdiction arguendo and examines liability theories in tortious interference; unfair-competition law; and conversion, trade-secret appropriation, and related theories of …

Not My Job: Determining The Bounds Of Public Employee Protected Speech, Stephen Allred

Law Faculty Publications

This article reviews the Supreme Court’s rulings in public employee free speech cases, discusses the significant departure from precedent that Garcetti made to those cases, summarizes the Court’s most recent ruling in Lane, and argues that the Court should return to the broader standard the Court originally announced in Pickering.

When Speech Isn't Free: Legal Barriers And Consequences Of Reporting Sexual Violence, Kevin M. Fleming

Departmental Honors Projects

Incidents of sexual violence continue to be a serious problem for society. Likewise, acts of sexual violence impose severe consequences for survivors. The consequences initially begin at the onset of the survivor’s journey to psychological recovery following the traumatic sexual assault. The consequences take on a unique set of characteristics when the survivor attempts to use the justice system to confront the perpetrator who committed the offense. These characteristics can transform an adversarial process into an isolated battle for the survivor. In the worst cases, the justice system empowers individuals who wish to silence survivors with free speech restrictions instead …

The Institutional Progress Clause, Jake Linford

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

There is a curious anomaly at the intersection of copyright and free speech. In cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the United States Supreme Court has exhibited a profound distaste for tailoring free speech rights and restrictions based on the identity of the speaker. The Copyright Act, however, is full of such tailoring, extending special rights to some classes of copyright owners and special defenses to some classes of users. A Supreme Court serious about maintaining speaker neutrality would be appalled.

A set of compromises at the heart of the Copyright Act reflects interest-group lobbying rather than a …

Unringing The Bell: Publicly Funded Art And The Government Speech Doctrine, John Barlow

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Article advances the novel argument that within the domain of removing publicly funded art from public display, the application of the Government Speech Doctrine is improper because of the current scope and policy considerations of the Doctrine, the mutable nature of art speech, and artist moral rights. As an alternative, this Article proposes a model statute legislatures should adopt that outlines an appropriate analytical framework for removing public art from public display that takes into consideration individual free speech rights, the government’s right to control its own messages, the nature of art speech, and artist moral rights.

Your Coach Is Watching: Can A High School Regulate Its Student-Athletes' Use Of Social Media?, Lauren E. Rosenbaum

Marquette Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Opposition Of Cultural Institutionalization Of Speech Following U.S. Intervention Into Foreign Governments, Carmen M. Cusack

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Google To Tolstoy Bot: Should The First Amendment Protect Speech Generated By Algorithms?, Margot Kaminski

Publications

No abstract provided.

From Keyboard To Schoolhouse: Student Speech In An Age Of Pervasive Technology, Erin M. Leach

Missouri Law Review

To most Americans, the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause is among the most sacred provisions of the Constitution. At first reading, it seems a broad guarantee of the right of citizens to speak their mind without limitation. But the jurisprudence on the clause shows that the law governing free speech is far from uncomplicated. The analysis is made more complex in the context of student speech due to a different set of standards governing the rights of students while they are under the care of their schools. S.J.W ex rel. Wilson v. Lee's Summit R-7 School District, a recent Eighth …