Law Commons^™

Commentary: Divisive Concepts And Regulation By Threat Of Baseless Lawsuit, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "At the State House, attention has returned to New Hampshire's so-called 'divisive concepts' law. The law, enacted in 2021, bars public K-12 teachers from engaging in certain forms of instruction on issues of race, gender, and other forms of discrimination. The Legislature is presently considering bills both to repeal the law and to extend it to the higher education context.

Those who support repeal tend to emphasize the vital need for classroom conversations on topics near the periphery of the restraints on speech imposed by law. And rightly so. The law's purpose and effect are to deter teachers and …

'Divisive Concepts' Law And The Big Chill, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Much Critical commentary concerning the so-called "divisive concepts" provisions in this year's budget legislation has focused on their restrictions on speech. These restrictions, among other things, forbid public K-12 teachers from instructing that some persons are "inherently superior or inferior to [others]", "inherently racist or sexist," "should be discriminated against," or "should not attempt to treat others equally" because of their "age, sex gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin."

New Hampshire's 'Divisive Concepts' Law And The Big Chill, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "

Much critical commentary on the so-called “divisive concepts” provisions in this year’s budget legislation – the label comes from language in an earlier version of the bill – has focused on their content- and viewpoint-based restraints on speech. These speech restrictions prohibit state public employers, including public K-12 school teachers, from (among other things) instructing that persons are “inherently superior or inferior to [others]” “inherently racist or sexist,” “should be discriminated against,” or “should not attempt to treat others equally” because of their “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or …

The Supreme Court's Worst Decision In Recent Years--Garcetti V. Ceballos, The Dred Scott Decision For Public Employees, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court decision of Garcetti v. Ceballos deserves its rightful place in the Court’s hall of shame. In Garcetti, the Court issued a decision that serves as a Dred Scott-type ruling for public employees, diminishing their free speech rights to an unacceptable level. The Court created a categorical rule that public employees have no free speech rights when engaged in official, job-related speech.

Under Garcetti, it does not matter how valuable an employee’s speech is, how much corruption that speech exposes, or whether the speech informs the public regarding an important issue. Instead, the five-justice majority focused …

Essay: The Fighting Words Doctrine: Alive And Well In The Lower Courts, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

The fighting words doctrine is alive and well in the lower courts. The first part of this article briefly explains how the fighting words doctrine has fared in the U.S. Supreme Court. These results would seem to indicate that it would be rare indeed for a defendant’s words to fall under the fighting words exception. That is not always the case. The next part of this article provides a sampling of decisions in which lower courts have rejected First Amendment-based defenses to disorderly conduct, breach of the peace, or similar charges based on the fighting words doctrine. The final part …

Unsettled Questions In Student Speech Law, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

More than fifty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court famously proclaimed in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” In subsequent decades, the Supreme Court reduced the level of free-speech protections for public school students, but Tinker is still the lodestar decision.

There remain several areas of uncertainty regarding the scope of student (K–12) First Amendment rights. This Article addresses three of those main areas: (1) whether a student’s speech can be limited by the unruly behavior …

Anti-Slapp Coverage And The First Amendment: Hurdles To Defamation Suits In Political Campaigns, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Defamation cases often arise out of intemperate or offensive statements made in political campaigns. These comments may refer to a candidate’s criminal history, familial conduct, or other matters. Whatever the subject, emotions undoubtedly run high during hotly contested campaigns. However, First Amendment protection is at its zenith when speakers engage in political speech, and speech about political candidates is inherently political speech. Thus, defamation suits arising out of political campaigns face significant hurdles, including (1) anti-SLAPP statutes and a greater public awareness of SLAPP suits; (2) a history and tradition of mudslinging and enhanced protection of political speech during political …

Essay: Cyberbullying And Freedom Of Speech, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Part I of this essay examines state cyberbullying laws. These laws vary a lot in terms of language and coverage but this part attempts to group these different state laws into different categories. This section categorizes cyberbullying laws into two main categories—(1) those that treat cyberbullying as a crime and (2) those that address cyberbullying as a violation of a school’s code of conduct. Part II of this essay then addresses court decisions that deal with cyberbullying. Once again, this essay examines the topic from both the perspective of (1) criminal law decisions and (2) school law decisions.

Essay: Understanding First Amendment Freedoms Through The Remarkable Life Of "The Greatest" --Muhammad Ali, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Muhammad Ali represents much more than a great sports figure and one of the greatest fighters of all time.He is also the epitome of the citizen protected by the First Amendment– a man who paid dearly for his religious convictions and provocative speech, but found a defense in the amendment’s forty-five words. An examination of First Amendment freedoms through the prism of Ali can teach us much about the fragility of the amendment but also the strength that we all can find in it. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting …

United States Supreme Court Survey: 2018 Term: Iancu V. Brunetti: Free Speech Meets "Immoral And Scandalous" Trademarks In The Supreme Court, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Rescuing Our Democracy By Rethinking New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, David A. Logan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Fixed Stars: Famous First Amendment Phrases And Their Indelible Impact, David L. Hudson Jr., Jacob David Glenn

Law Faculty Scholarship

Some passages in First Amendment law have taken on a life and legend of their own, entering our cultural lexicon for their particular power, precision or passion. Some phrases are just so beautifully written that they cannot escape notice. Others aptly capture the essence of a key concept in a memorable way. Still others seemingly have grown in importance simply by the frequency for which they are cited in later court decisions. This article analyzes ten phrases from U.S. Supreme Court First Amendment decisions that qualify as some of the most enduring passages in First Amendment jurisprudence.

Will Conservative Justices Sound The Death Knell Of State Action? Be Careful For What You Wish, Anne M. Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

U.S. Supreme Court Surveys: 2016 Term. Matal V. Tam: Free Speech Meets "Disparaging" Trademarks In The Supreme Court, Niki Kuckes

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Finding Freedom For The Thoughts We Hate, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously defended tolerance as an indispensable constitutional value. He wrote: “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Yet accepting that the Constitution protects the thought that we hate can be difficult, even during the best of times. And these are far from the best of times. Nuclear brinksmanship …

The Boundaries Of Partisan Gerrymandering, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] “In my most recent column, I expressed concern about the effectiveness of the constitutional decision rules that currently govern gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral districts in a manner that favors the incumbent majority at the expense of those out of power.

Briefly, the Constitution has not been interpreted to prohibit redistricting with an eye toward advancing the interests of the political party in power. But it has been interpreted to bar legislators from redistricting on racial grounds – at least in most circumstances.

The problem is that voters from certain racial groups tend to vote overwhelmingly for …

The Trump Presidency And The Press, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "It is not difficult to understand why presidents frequently voice frustration with the press. Imagine being subjected to critical analysis 24/7 by reporters, bloggers and pundits who often lack complete and accurate information but face competitive pressure to publish quickly."

The Tension Between Equal Protection And Religious Freedom, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "The Constitution did not become our basic law at a single point in time. We ratified its first seven articles in 1788 but have since amended it 27 times. Many of these amendments memorialize fundamental shifts in values. Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that the Constitution is not an internally consistent document."

…

"Other constitutional provisions -- even provisions that were simultaneously enacted -- protect freedoms that can come into conflict with one another. The First Amendment, for example, promises both freedom from governmental endorsement of religion and freedom from governmental interference with religious practice. …

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.

Stolen Valor & The First Amendment: Does Trademark Infringement Law Leave Congress An Opening?, Susan Richey, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper elaborates an argument the authors presented in an amicus brief filed in United States v. Alvarez, the "Stolen Valor" case. The paper contends that Congress could constitutionally protect the Congressional Medal of Honor as a collective membership mark by means of trademark infringement legislation.

Brief Of The Intellectual Property Amicus Brief Clinic Of The University Of New Hampshire School Of Law As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Susan M. Richey, John M. Greabe, Keith M. Harrison, J. Jeffrey Hawley

Law Faculty Scholarship

Amicus brief filed by the Intellectual Property Amicus Brief Clinic of the University of New Hampshire School of Law with the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit regarding United States v. Xavier Alvarez, Docket No. 11-210

The Architecture Of First Amendment Free Speech, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Tinker And Viewpoint Discrimination, John E. Taylor

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Clear And Present Internet: Terrorism, Cyberspace, And The First Amendment, Peter Margulies

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Art As Speech, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Roger Williams On Liberty Of Conscience, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is There A "Religious Question" Doctrine?: Judicial Authority To Examine Religious Practices And Beliefs, Jared Goldstein

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Cross Burning, Hate Speech, And Free Speech In America, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Another Of Roger William's Gifts: Women's Right To Liberty Of Conscience: Joshua Verin V. Providence Plantations, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Coercion, Pop-Psychology, And Judicial Moralizing: Some Proposals For Curbing Judicial Abuse Of Probation Conditions, Andrew Horwitz

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.