Law Commons^™

Listeners' Choices, James Grimmelmann

University of Colorado Law Review

Speech is a matching problem. Speakers choose listeners, and listeners choose speakers. When their choices conflict, law often decides who speaks to whom. The pattern is clear: First Amendment doctrine consistently honors listeners' choices for speech. When willing and unwilling listeners' choices conflict, willing listeners win. And when competing speakers' choices conflict, listeners'choices break the tie. This Essay provides a theoretical framework for analyzing speech problems in terms of speakers' and listeners' choices, an argument for the centrality of listener choice to any coherent theory of free speech, and supporting examples from First Amendment caselaw.

The Macguffin And The Net: Taking Internet Listeners Seriously, Derek E. Bambauer

University of Colorado Law Review

To date, listeners and readers play little more than bit parts in First Amendment jurisprudence. The advent of digital networked communication over the Internet supports moving these interests to center stage in free speech doctrine and offers new empirical data to evaluate the regulation of online information. Such a shift will have important and unexpected consequences for other areas, including ones seemingly orthogonal to First Amendment concerns. This Essay explores likely shifts in areas that include intellectual property, tort, and civil procedure, all of which have been able to neglect certain free speech issues because of the lack of listener …

A Purpose-And-Effect Test To Limit The Expansion Of The Government Speech Doctrine, Will Soper

University of Colorado Law Review

The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from passing any law that limits the freedom of private speech. However, in order to effectively govern, the state must communicate its policies and messages in ways that may not leave room for competing views. Since the early 1990s, the Supreme Court has articulated and developed the doctrine of government speech: when the government speaks, it is exempt from the First Amendment. The doctrine's use and expansion has its detractors. Many are worried that government speech should only be protected when it would be clear to a reasonable listener that the …

Incredible Lies, Catherine J. Ross

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Developing A Taxonomy Of Lies Under The First Amendment, Alan K. Chen, Justin Marceau

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Memorandum, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This legal Memorandum on the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and written by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The Memorandum is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

4 p.

"The legislative history primarily identifies two issues that SB08-200 was designed to resolve: (1) the need for dignity and access to justice for LGBT people and …

Master File, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colo. Civil Rights Comm., __ U.S. __ (2017): Legislative History Of Sb08-200, Matt Simonsen

Research Data

This Master File of the legislative history of a 2008 amendment to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) was researched and compiled by Matt Simonsen, J.D. Candidate 2019, University of Colorado Law School, and submitted to law professors Craig Konnoth and Melissa Hart. The SB08-200 Master File is cited in Brief of Amici Curiae Colorado Organizations and Individuals in Support of Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, __U.S.__ (2018) (No. 16-111).

449 p.

Siri-Ously 2.0: What Artificial Intelligence Reveals About The First Amendment, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

The First Amendment may protect speech by strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). In this Article, we support this provocative claim by expanding on earlier work, addressing significant concerns and challenges, and suggesting potential paths forward.

This is not a claim about the state of technology. Whether strong AI — as-yet-hypothetical machines that can actually think — will ever come to exist remains far from clear. It is instead a claim that discussing AI speech sheds light on key features of prevailing First Amendment doctrine and theory, including the surprising lack of humanness at its core.

Courts and commentators wrestling with free …

Checking The Government’S Deception Through Public Employee Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Siri-Ously? Free Speech Rights And Artificial Intelligence, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton

Publications

Computers with communicative artificial intelligence (AI) are pushing First Amendment theory and doctrine in profound and novel ways. They are becoming increasingly self-directed and corporal in ways that may one day make it difficult to call the communication ours versus theirs. This, in turn, invites questions about whether the First Amendment ever will (or ever should) cover AI speech or speakers even absent a locatable and accountable human creator. In this Article, we explain why current free speech theory and doctrine pose surprisingly few barriers to this counterintuitive result; their elasticity suggests that speaker humanness no longer may be …

How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

From Google To Tolstoy Bot: Should The First Amendment Protect Speech Generated By Algorithms?, Margot Kaminski

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants, Scott A. Moss

Publications

Each of the Supreme Court's high school student speech cases reflected the social angst of its era. In 1965's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, three Iowa teens broke school rules to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. In 1983, amidst parental and political upset about youth exposure to sexuality in the media, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allowed the censorship of an innuendo-filled student government speech and a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy and parental divorce. In 2007, Morse v. Frederick paralleled the rise of reality television …

A Fundamental Right To Read: Reader Privacy Protections In The U.S. Constitution, Eric Robertson

University of Colorado Law Review

Bookstore customers and library patrons typically expect their book purchases and book-borrowing habits to remain private, but what is the legal basis for this expectation and is it justified? This Comment examines court decisions, readers' privacy scholarship, and First Amendment jurisprudence in search of a consistent answer. Although courts and scholars have taken different approaches in identifying a right to readers' privacy and what activity it encompasses, this Comment concludes that a right to reader privacy is fundamental under the First Amendment. In the end, this Comment seeks to provide a simplified solution to the complex constitutional issues that can …

Regulating Cyberharassment: Some Thoughts On Sexual Harassment 2.0, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Ending Pay-To-Play In The Municipal Securities Business: Msrb Rule G-3 7 Ten Years Later, Kevin Opp

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Six Opinions By Mr. Justice Stevens: A New Methodology For Constitutional Cases?, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Voice In Government: The People, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Silence And The Word, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Progressive Free Speech And The Uneasy Case For Campus Hate Codes, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

How To Do Things With The First Amendment, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Thomas Hearings: Watching Ourselves, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Forgetting The Constitution, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Commentary, The Selling Of Jury Deliberations, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Teaching Tolerance, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech As Therapy, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Rules And Standards, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Book Review, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

How Useful Is Judicial Review In Free Speech Cases?, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

On Complaining About The Burger Court, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.