Law Commons^™

The Public Choice Problem In Corporate Law: Corporate Social Responsibility After Citizens United, David Yosifon

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) that the First Amendment forbids Congress from restricting the political speech of corporations. While corporate theory did little to inform the Court’s thinking in Citizens United, this Article argues that the holding in Citizens United requires us to rethink corporate theory. The shareholder primacy norm in American corporate governance relies on the assumption that corporations can be restrained from influencing external governmental operations. We can enjoy the efficiencies generated by shareholder primacy in corporate governance, mainstream corporate theorists have long argued, because we can rely on external regulation …

The Schwarzenegger Bobblehead Case: Introduction And Statement Of Facts, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

In May 2004, news media around the world buzzed after learning that Arnold Schwarzenegger, movie-star-turned Governor of California, had filed a lawsuit against an Ohio manufacturer of bobblehead dolls bearing his name and likeness. The case presented a seemingly stark choice between the right of a celebrity-politician to protect his image against commercial appropriation and the First Amendment rights of the public to lampoon that image, and commentators hoped that the case would set a precedent regarding how those rights should be balanced. Just three months later, however, before any court ruling had been made, the parties announced that they …

Speech Showdowns At The Virtual Corral, Eric Goldman

Faculty Publications

INTRODUCTION

This article considers the tension between free speech rights and private property/contract rights. Neither free speech rights nor private property and contract rights are absolute. Where they intersect in the physical world, confusing legal doctrines usually emerge, such as the U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing private speech at privately owned company towns and shopping centers. Though a bright-line rule has emerged-the First Amendment pertains only to stateactors-the rule provides little prospective guidance because private actors can be characterized as state actors in some circumstances.

In the online world, the speech/rights dichotomy also raises complex issues. Online private actors routinely …

Introduction: Tiger Woods And The First Amendment, Tyler T. Ochoa

Faculty Publications

Although the right of publicity has been recognized as a distinct common-law doctrine since 1953, only in recent years have courts begun to take the First Amendment seriously as a limit on the extent to which sports figures and other celebrities can use the doctrine to control the use of their images. It is widely recognized that the government may prohibit false and misleading speech, such as an advertisement that falsely implies an endorsement of a product by an individual, without violating the First Amendment. Similarly, it is generally acknowledged that the First Amendment protects the depiction of celebrities in …