Law Commons^™

Platforms, The First Amendment And Online Speech: Regulating The Filters, Sofia Grafanaki

Pace Law Review

In recent years, online platforms have given rise to multiple discussions about what their role is, what their role should be, and whether they should be regulated. The complex nature of these private entities makes it very challenging to place them in a single descriptive category with existing rules. In today’s information environment, social media platforms have become a platform press by providing hosting as well as navigation and delivery of public expression, much of which is done through machine learning algorithms. This article argues that there is a subset of algorithms that social media platforms use to filter public …

Comrades Or Foes: Did The Russians Break The Law Or New Ground For The First Amendment?, Artem M. Joukov, Samantha M. Caspar

Pace Law Review

This Article discusses the recent decision by the United States Federal Government to indict more than a dozen Russian nationals for conspiracy to defraud the United States of America. The Government accused the Russians of staging protests, distributing false propaganda, and spreading political messages and ideologies online in an effort to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. We argue that while the Defendants violated several other laws, the majority of the acts the Government classifies as a conspiracy to defraud the United States should not be considered criminal. Rather, these acts are protected political speech under the First …

Fair Use And First Amendment: Without Fair Use, What Would You Freely Speak About?, Adam Blaier

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

The question this paper tries to answer is: Without fair use, what would you freely speak about? This paper will seek to demonstrate that the Copyright Clause’s Fair Use doctrine, and the First Amendment are cousins who help each other, rather than enemies sworn to destroy each other as some believe. First I will give a brief overview and history of each doctrine. Next I will speak about three areas where I believe fair use and the First Amendment cross paths extensively. These areas are: (1) school/education; (2) social media and news; and (3) sports images/broadcasting. Finally, I will demonstrate …

Fourth & Inches: Marking The Line Of Athletes’ Free Speech (A Colin Kaepernick Inspired Discussion), Ryan J. Mcginty

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This note addresses the ongoing controversial stance that was ignited when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem in protest of what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States. The scope of this note does not surround Kaepernick himself, but rather the professional NFL football player in general. Specifically, players are entitled to the full rights of free expression and free speech as human beings and public figures, up and until the line where that right is abused on the field or “on the job,” thereby threatening an increase …

On The Categorical Approach To Free Speech – And The Protracted Failure To Delimit The True Threats Exception To The First Amendment, Wayne Batchis

Pace Law Review

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Elonis v. United States on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. In doing so, it turned away an important opportunity to provide needed clarification of true threats, a category of expression relegated to a lower level of protection by the Court almost a half-century ago. The categorical approach to free speech made its first explicit appearance in Supreme Court case law in 1942. Since that time, the Court has relied heavily on this method of constitutional interpretation, carving out discrete exceptions from the seemingly absolutist mandate of the First Amendment that Congress make …

No Jokes About Dope: Morse V. Frederick's Educational Rationale, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This piece begins with a “protective” reading of Morse v. Frederick, showing how this rationale provides a good starting point in understanding Morse but is ultimately incomplete. Indeed, Justice Stevens’ dissent is largely an argument that the protective rationale falls short here. I then re-examine Morse from the perspective of the educational rationale and conclude that the underlying, largely unstated premise of the Morse majority is that schools—as part of teaching students about the gravity of drug use—should be able to convey disapproval of messages suggesting that drug use is a joking or trivial matter. This helps to explain why …

University Imprimaturs On Student Speech: The Certification Cases, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Article begins in Part I by describing these three student speech cases and then examining what makes them a distinct category within the larger student speech landscape. As I discuss, the student speech framework was largely developed by the Supreme Court in the K-12 public school context. Conflicts over student speech in universities, in turn, have generally centered on the extent to which the K-12 framework should carry over to the higher education context, given the greater independence and maturity of university students. Recent cases about universities' ability to control student publications, for example, fall into this mold, with …

United States V. Stevens: Win, Loss, Or Draw For Animals?, David N. Cassuto

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Robert J. Stevens, proprietor of “Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. §48, a law criminalizing visual or auditory depictions of animals being “intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if such conduct violated federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession [of such materials]” takes place.” The law aimed principally at makers and distributors of “crush videos” wherein women wearing high heels and depicted from the waist down, grind small animals to death. However, the language of 18 U.S.C. §48 extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law …

Badmouthing Authority: Hostile Speech About School Officials And The Limits Of School Restrictions, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Article's first two parts discuss the extent to which schools can legally restrict hostile student speech about school officials, should they choose to do so. Part I examines how courts have traditionally approached hostile student speech about school officials when it occurs at school, and Part II then considers how courts have been analyzing the issue when it moves off campus. In the course of this discussion, the Article identifies three key categories of such speech: (1) speech that arguably threatens toward a school official; (2) speech that is primarily vulgar about a school official; and (3) the most …

The Government-Speech Doctrine: “Recently Minted,” But Counterfeit, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The foci of this Article are the ill-advised creation of a government-speech doctrine in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009), and its potential for substantial First Amendment mischief particularly with respect to the establishment of religion. Created out of whole cloth, with no regard for precedent, and in a case that did not even raise the issue of government speech, the doctrine permits the government to speak with viewpoint about controversial cultural issues upon which the government has no constitutional right to act. Asked to find unconstitutional the refusal of a municipality to allow a Summum …

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 …

Returning To Hazelwood's Core: A New Approach To Restrictions On School-Sponsored Speech, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The Article begins by discussing the Hazelwood decision in depth. It then discusses the various contexts in which courts have applied Hazelwood and the circuit split that has developed over how broadly Hazelwood should reach. Next, it describes the circuit split over whether Hazelwood permits viewpoint-based speech restrictions, highlighting the different speech contexts in which the circuits have reached divergent conclusions. The Article then argues that the overextension of Hazelwood links the two splits. This Part also discusses why Hazelwood is uniquely suited to the student speech context and why other doctrines-namely, the Pickering-Connick framework for teachers' classroom speech and …

A Post-Morse Framework For Students' Potentially Hurtful Speech (Religious And Otherwise), Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

In this Article, I weave together strands from Tinker, Fraser, and Morse, as well as from lower court decisions taking varying approaches to this issue, to propose a new standard for student speech that is potentially hurtful to other students. This approach encompasses, without being limited to, speech that is religiously-motivated in nature. I argue that student speech that is hurtful to other students (whether religiously-motivated or not) should first be divided into two categories: (1) speech that identifies particular students for attack; and (2) speech, such as the message on Harper's T-shirt, that expresses a general opinion without being …

Eras Of The First Amendment, David S. Yassky

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Part I will begin the story with the Founders' understanding of the structural role of the First Amendment. In this understanding, the First Amendment served as a bulwark of state independence. Along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment had as its primary purpose maintenance of the federal system--or, more precisely, protection of the states against federal government overreaching. The Founders' plan left the individual states entirely free to regulate speech, while strictly prohibiting the federal government from displacing the states' various speech regimes.

When the Civil War dramatically reshaped the federal-state relationship, the structural purpose …