Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Courts, Trademarks, And The Icann Gold Rush: No Free Speech In Top Level Domains, Jerome O'Callaghan, Paula O'Callaghan
Courts, Trademarks, And The Icann Gold Rush: No Free Speech In Top Level Domains, Jerome O'Callaghan, Paula O'Callaghan
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
In recent years, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) expanded top-level domains, such as .com, .net, and .org, to include a very wide variety of new terms. One of the new options is .sucks. This Article examines the potential for conflict when trademark holders seek to protect their mark in the context of the .sucks domain. There is a temptation to see this issue in terms of consumers’ free speech rights pitted against corporate interests. However, the recent privatization of ICANN does not bode well for promoting consumers’ First Amendment rights in domain name battles.
Know Your Audience: Risky Speech At The Intersection Of Meaning And Value In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker
Know Your Audience: Risky Speech At The Intersection Of Meaning And Value In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
Using the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper as an analytical springboard, this article examines the vast burdens placed on speakers in four realms of First Amendment law to correctly know their audiences, in advance of communication, if they want to receive constitutional protection. Specifically, the article asserts that speakers are freighted with accurately understanding both the meaning and the value audiences will ascribe to their messages, ex ante, in the areas of obscenity, intentional infliction of emotional distress, student speech, and true threats. A speaker’s inability to effectively predict a recipient’s reaction to …
Ask Me No Questions And I’Ll Tell You No Lies: The First Amendments And Falsehoods In Ballot Question Campaigns, Michelle Roberts
Ask Me No Questions And I’Ll Tell You No Lies: The First Amendments And Falsehoods In Ballot Question Campaigns, Michelle Roberts
Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review
American voters have come to expect exaggeration, distortion, and mudslinging in political campaigns, but do campaigners have a First Amendment right to blatantly lie—to simply make up false statistics and “facts”? A recent appellate court suggests that lying is permissible in initiative and referendum campaigns. However, providing constitutional protection for such statements undermines the most compelling justification for the right to free speech: preservation of enlightened self-government. Voters cannot be expected to govern wisely or in accordance with their consciences when they are subjected to a barrage of lies. The Supreme Court already recognizes discrete areas where free speech rights …