Law Commons^™

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …

The Roberts Court Vs. Free Speech, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

No abstract provided.

Brief For The Respondants, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1498, 09-89 (U.S. Dec. 22, 2009), Neal K. Katyal

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

On Writs Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, Nos. 08-1298, 09-89 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

On Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 09-89 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Opposition To Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Conditional Cross-Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project, No. 08-1498 (U.S. July 6, 2009), David Cole

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Domain And Forum: Public Space, Public Freedom, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The particular problems of content and viewpoint discrimination rarely surface in copyright, though some people have argued that fair use implicates them. Nonetheless, one important lesson for copyright from public forum doctrine is that First Amendment law can take some - though not many - speech-related options off the table. In this brief comment, I argue that analogies between copyright law and public forum doctrine highlight important shared commitments to free and robust public discourse, but also substantial practical barriers to judicial enforcement of those commitments.

Corporations And Commercial Speech, Ronald Collins, Mark Lopez, Tamara Piety, David C. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Even though we are discussing a case that was not decided on the merits, Nike v. Kasky is an important case because it crystallizes two of the essential critiques about the commercial speech doctrine, critiques that have run through this doctrine from before its advent in 1976 to today. The fundamental debate Nike triggered over what constitutes "commercial speech" and how strictly commercial speech should be regulated is still being played out - not just in the academy, but also in the courts on a day-to-day basis. So this is a timely and important topic.

Trademark Law As Commercial Speech Regulations, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

False advertising law has largely escaped constitutional scrutiny because courts consider false or misleading commercial speech outside the protection of the First Amendment. Even moderate First Amendment protection for truthful commercial speech, however, requires some constitutional policing of the line between truth and falsity. Current enforcement of false advertising law, whether administrative, as with the FDA's regulation of drug-related speech, or judicial, as with Lanham Act suits brought by private parties, is ill-equipped to deal with First Amendment doctrine's very different concerns, rules, and presumptions. This contribution to the symposium will explore some of the ways in which the First …

Weak-Form Judicial Review And "Core" Civil Liberties, Mark V. Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this Essay, I want to unearth some subordinated strands in the Rehnquist Court's free speech jurisprudence. For example, the Rehnquist Court allowed Congress to regulate campaign finance in ways subject to credible First Amendment objections, and to impose obligations on cable television systems that would almost certainly be unconstitutional were they imposed on newspapers. These decisions, I suggest, do not rest simply on the kind of deference to legislative judgment that fits comfortably into a system of strong-form review. Rather, they represent what I call a managerial model of the First Amendment, which accords legislatures a large role in …

Terrorist Speech And The Future Of Free Expression, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The crucial point is this: Both liberal, democratic states, and non-state terrorist organizations need free speech. Prominent scholars have written elegantly and at length on the role of this liberty for the former. While their arguments surface at times in the text, the author does not dwell on them. Instead, she wrestles with the question: Under what circumstances are the interests of the state secured and the opportunism of terrorist organizations avoided? Here, the experiences of the United States and United Kingdom prove instructive. On both sides of the Atlantic, where the state acts as sovereign, efforts to restrict persuasive …

The Very Idea Of A First Amendment Right Against Compelled Subsidization, Gregory Klass

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

At present, it is difficult to discern what rules govern compelled subsidization and where the constitutional limits lie. The root cause of the current confusion is the Supreme Court's failure to provide a coherent account of the First Amendment harm of compelled subsidization. Part I of this Article describes the present state of the doctrine. It identifies a number of practical problems, especially the imprecisions in and conflicts between the Court's holdings that leave it unclear how lower courts should decide novel cases. Part II is a critical discussion of the two most common arguments for a First Amendment right …

Lessons From A Story Untold: Nike V. Kasky Reconsidered, David C. Vladeck

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Supreme Court's recent dismissal, apparently on jurisdictional grounds, of the writ of certiorari it had granted to review Nike, Inc. v. Kasky has brought into sharp focus a number of critiques of the commercial speech doctrine - some new, some longstanding. At issue in Nike were communications Nike made to customers, newspaper editors, college presidents and athletic directors, and others responding to allegations that Nike had engaged in, or was complicit in, the mistreatment of foreign workers. Respondent Marc Kasky contended that Nike's communications contained significant misstatements of fact and thus were actionable under California's unfair competition and false …

Why Doesn't She Leave? The Collision Of First Amendment Rights And Effective Court Remedies For Victims Of Domestic Violence, Laurie S. Kohn

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Despite the persistence of the question, social science literature is replete with reasons why a victim does not or cannot leave a battering relationship. Commonly cited explanations include lack of financial resources; fear of physical retribution; lack of access to information about options for escape; enduring love for the batterer and belief he will change; learned helplessness; and depression. This Article, however, focuses on a pervasive and previously unexamined reason: the victim's fear that the batterer will publicize truthful confidential information that will hurt her. If the victim were to seek the court's protection, most state courts have the authority …

The Value Of Dissent, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This essay reviews Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America by Steven H. Shiffrin (1999).

Theorizing about the freedom of speech has been a central enterprise of contemporary legal scholarship. The important contributions to the debate are simply far too numerous to categorize. One ambition of this theorizing is the production of a comprehensive theory of the freedom of expression, a set of consistent normative principles that would explain and justify First Amendment doctrine. Despite an outpouring of scholarly effort, the consensus is that free speech theory has failed to realize this imperial ambition. Rather than searching for the global …

Copyright As A Model For Free Speech Law: What Copyright Has In Common With Anti-Pornography Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, And Telecommunications Regulation, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Copyright raises real and troubling free speech issues, and standard responses to those concerns are inadequate. This Article aims to put copyright in the context of other free speech doctrine. Acknowledging the link between copyright and free speech can help determine the proper contours of a copyright regime that both allows and limits property rights in expression, skewing the content of speech toward change.