Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- 1st amendment (3)
- First amendment (3)
- Government (3)
- Amendment (2)
- Belief (2)
-
- Clause (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Expression (2)
- First (2)
- Liberty (2)
- Morality (2)
- Religion (2)
- Religious (2)
- Supreme court (2)
- Test (2)
- United states (2)
- 14th (1)
- 14th amendment (1)
- 1st (1)
- 1st congress (1)
- Affiliation (1)
- Alexis de tocqueville (1)
- America (1)
- Balancing (1)
- Balancing test (1)
- Benefits (1)
- California (1)
- Censor (1)
- Censorship (1)
- Church (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
Absolute Freedom Of Opinion And Sentiment On All Subjects: John Stuart Mill’S Enduring (And Ever-Growing) Influence On The Supreme Court’S First Amendment Free Speech Jurisprudence, Eric T. Kasper, Troy A. Kozma
University of Massachusetts Law Review
A majority of Justices on the contemporary U.S. Supreme Court have increasingly adopted a largely libertarian view of the constitutional right to the freedom of expression. Indeed, on issues ranging from campaign finance to offensive speech to symbolic speech to commercial speech to online expression, the Court has struck down many laws on free speech grounds. Much of the reasoning in these cases mirrors John Stuart Mill’s arguments in On Liberty. This is not new, as Mill’s position on free speech has been advocated by some members of the Court for a century. However, the advocacy of Mill’s position …
Going To The Clerk’S Office And We’Re Not Going To Get Married, Alicia F. Blanchard
Going To The Clerk’S Office And We’Re Not Going To Get Married, Alicia F. Blanchard
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Same-sex marriage is a controversial topic subject to great debate. The Supreme Court in 2015 federally recognized the legality of same-sex marriages in Obergefell v. Hodges. Despite this ruling, some people looked for any reason to denounce the holding. Perhaps none were more vocal than those who rejected same-sex marriage on the basis of their religious tenets. Miller v. Davis provided people who were morally opposed to same-sex marriage a platform to support their concerns grounded in a First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The question is how far does one’s freedom of religion extend? Does freedom of religion …
Ulysses: A Mighty Hero In The Fight For Freedom Of Expression, Marc J. Randazza
Ulysses: A Mighty Hero In The Fight For Freedom Of Expression, Marc J. Randazza
University of Massachusetts Law Review
James Joyce’s Ulysses was a revolutionary novel, and this much is common knowledge. What is not common knowledge is how useful Ulysses was in pushing the boundaries of freedom of expression. This masterpiece of literature opened the door for modern American free speech jurisprudence, but in recent years has become more of an object of judicial scorn. This Article seeks to educate legal scholars as to the importance of the novel, and attempts to reverse the anti-intellectual spirit that runs through modern American jurisprudence, where the novel is now more used as an object of mockery, or as a negative …
Out Of Balance: Wrong Turns In Public Employee Speech Law, Michael Toth
Out Of Balance: Wrong Turns In Public Employee Speech Law, Michael Toth
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Although scholars offer a variety of explanations for the modern Supreme Court’s public employee speech jurisprudence, they share a common presumption. According to the standard account, the modern era of public employee free speech law began in 1968, with the Court’s adoption of a balancing test in Pickering v. Board of Education. Contrary to this view, this Article argues that Pickering balancing is better characterized as a relic from a bygone era rather than the start of a new one. Balancing was once the Court’s standard method of judging First Amendment claims. When Pickering was decided, however, balancing was under …
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
2007 National Lawyer’S Convention The Federalist Society And Its Federalism And Separation Of Powers Practice Groups Present A Panel Debate On Federalism: Religion, Early America And The Fourteenth Amendment, John Eastman, Marci Hamilton, William H. Pryor Jr.
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Transcript of the Federalist Society and its Federalism and Separation of Powers Practice Groups panel debate at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention including panelists Dean John Eastman of Chapman University School of Law, Professor Marci Hamilton of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and moderated by Hon. William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
In Impartiality We Trust: A Commentary On Government Aid And Involvement With Religion, Thomas J. Cleary
University of Massachusetts Law Review
Ultimately, because true neutrality is not possible, nearly all government interaction with religion is to some degree friendly or hostile. One could argue, therefore, that government interaction with religion is inherently friendly or hostile in nature. As a consequence, establishing neutrality as the ideal misses the mark and has produced a swinging pendulum in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. At one end of its arc the pendulum produces hostility towards religion and at the other end of the arc it produces friendliness towards religion. This is reflected in case law and in both early and modern government practices. Ultimately, the pendulum …
Conscience, Coercion, And The Constitution: Some Thoughts, Dwight G. Duncan
Conscience, Coercion, And The Constitution: Some Thoughts, Dwight G. Duncan
University of Massachusetts Law Review
As a consequence, this article will argue that the most viable constitutional strategy for protecting conscientious objectors is to bracket the question of whether it is religiously motivated. Rather, it will focus simply on the question of whether it is a sincerely held moral conviction, while seeking to expand existing freedom of speech case law under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to maximize protection for people of conscience from being obliged to act contrary to their conscience.