Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment (2)
- Assisted suicide (1)
- Commercial speech (1)
- Commercial speech doctrine (1)
- Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy (1)
-
- FDA regulation (1)
- Film as action (1)
- Film as influence (1)
- Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (1)
- Free speech law (1)
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Hate speech (1)
- Mass entertainment (1)
- Off-label marketing (1)
- Offensive speech (1)
- Racial hate (1)
- Science of influence (1)
- Speech regulation (1)
- University of Pennsylvania Law Review (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Snake Oil Salesman Or Purveyors Of Knowledge: Off-Label Promotions And The Commercial Speech Doctrine, Constance E. Bagley, Joshua Mitts
Snake Oil Salesman Or Purveyors Of Knowledge: Off-Label Promotions And The Commercial Speech Doctrine, Constance E. Bagley, Joshua Mitts
Faculty Scholarship
The Second Circuit’s December 2012 decision in United States v. Caronia striking down the prohibition on off-label marketing of pharmaceutical drugs has profound implications for economic regulation in general, calling into question the constitutionality of restrictions on the offer and sale of securities under the Securities Act of 1933, the solicitation of shareholder proxies and periodic reporting under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, mandatory labels on food, tobacco, and pesticides, and a wide range of privacy protections. In this Article we suggest that Caronia misconstrues the Supreme Court’s holding in Sorrell v. IMS Health, which was motivated by concerns …
Can Moving Pictures Speak? Silent Film, Free Speech, And Social Science In Early 20th Century Law, Jennifer Petersen
Can Moving Pictures Speak? Silent Film, Free Speech, And Social Science In Early 20th Century Law, Jennifer Petersen
Studio for Law and Culture
When the Supreme Court was first confronted with a First Amendment case involving film, it was confronted with a difficult and fascinating question: were silent films speech? The decision in the case, Mutual v. Ohio (1915), famously answered no. The decision is usually understood to be part of a tradition of interpretations of the First Amendment as applying primarily to political opinion; in this reading, film was not protected because it was entertainment and/or commerce. However, Mutual also contains a set of arguments about the nature of film as more akin to action than to speech — arguments embedded in …
Hate Speech And The Demos, Jamal Greene
Hate Speech And The Demos, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
It is sometimes said that the statist and aristocratic traditions of Europe render its political institutions less democratic than those of the United States. Richard Posner writes of “the less democratic cast of European politics, as a result of which elite opinion is more likely to override public opinion than it is in the United States.” If that is true, then there are obvious ways in which it figures into debates over the wisdom of hate-speech regulation. The standard European argument in favor of such regulation may easily be characterized as antidemocratic: Restrictions on hate speech protect unpopular minority groups …
Machine Speech, Tim Wu
Machine Speech, Tim Wu
Faculty Scholarship
Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?