Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Pace University

Civil Rights and Discrimination

2010

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Michael B. Mushlin Jul 2010

Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Michael B. Mushlin

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Nicholas A. Robinson Jul 2010

Remarks At Memorial Service For The Honorable Morris E. Lasker, U.S. District Court, Southern District Of New York, Nicholas A. Robinson

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


“Sexting” And The First Amendment, John A. Humbach Apr 2010

“Sexting” And The First Amendment, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

“Sexting” and other teen autopornography are becoming a widespread phenomenon, with perhaps 20% of teenagers admitting to producing nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves and an ever greater proportion, perhaps as many as 50%, having received such pictures from friends and classmates. It is, moreover, beginning to result in criminal prosecutions. Given the reality of changing social practices, mores and technology utilization, today’s pornography laws are a trap for unwary teens and operate, in effect, to criminalize a large fraction of America’s young people. As such, these laws and prosecutions represent a stark example of the contradictions that can occur …


Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman Jan 2010

Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article examines the Supreme Court’s student speech framework and argues that, in focusing exclusively on the types of student speech that can be restricted, the framework fails to build in any differentiation as to how such speech can be restricted. This is true even though there are two very distinct types of speech restrictions in schools: suppression of the speech itself; and after-the-fact punishment of the student speaker. As the student speech landscape itself gets more complex – given schools’ experimentation with new disciplinary regimes along with the tremendous rise in student cyber-speech – the blurring of that distinction …