Law Commons^™

Draft Of Beck Lecture - 2010, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

I am grateful to the wonderful BU community that has taught me so much, and to those who made this event possible. I thank Dean O'Rourke for hosting this wonderful event, Mary Gallagher, Cornell Stinson and Erin Elwood for organizing it, and I thank you all for coming. I am honored to follow Bill Ryckman in the Chair, a man I admire. Most especially I thank Phil Beck for his generosity to the Boston University School of Law in funding this Chair. It's flattering to me having been chosen its recipient, and flattering to the school that Phil chose us …

Draft Of Beck Speech - 2010, Wendy J. Gordon

Scholarship Chronologically

I come here with a sense of gratitude, to the intellectually stimulating BU community of students, staff and faculty, that has taught me so much, and grateful today especially to those who made this event possible. I would like to thank you all for coming, thank Dean O'Rourke for hosting this wonderful event, Mary Gallagher and Cornell Stinson for organizing it, and most especially I thank Phil Beck for his generosity to the Boston University School of Law in funding this Chair. It's immensely flattering to me having been chosen the initial recipient, and flattering to the school that Phil …

Best Intentions: Reconsidering Best Practices Statements In The Context Of Fair Use And Copyright Law, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

Private ordering is increasingly playing a role in determining the scope of intellectual property rights both as a de facto and a de jure matter. In this essay, I consider the best practices movement and its efforts to use private ordering to limit the scope and enforcement of copyright law. Best practices statements in the copyright context establish voluntary guidelines for what should be deemed fair uses of others’ copyrighted works. I identify some of the de facto successes of the best practices movement, but also raise a number of concerns about the project. As I have discussed elsewhere, the …

Remembering Ed Baker, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This is a short biographical piece honoring and describing deceased colleague C. Edwin Baker.

Liberating Copyright: Thinking Beyond Free Speech, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have often turned to the First Amendment to limit the scope of ever-expanding copyright law. This approach has mostly failed to convince courts that independent review is merited and has offered little to individuals engaged in personal rather than political or cultural expression. In this Article, I consider the value of an alternative paradigm using the lens of substantive due process and liberty to evaluate users’ rights. A liberty-based approach uses this other developed body of constitutional law to demarcate justifiable personal, identity-based uses of copyrighted works. Uses that are essential for mental integrity, intimacy promotion, communication, or religious …

Astrachan And Easton: Fight Wikileaks Case In Court, Not In Cyberspace, James B. Astrachan, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What The Abortion Disclosure Cases Say About The Constitutionality Of Persuasive Government Speech On Product Labels, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Enforcing The Bill Of Rights Against The States: The History And The Future, Richard Aynes

Akron Law Faculty Publications

This article traces, in broad strokes, the history of the disputes about whether or not the Bill of Rights can be enforced against the states.

It begins with pre-Fourteenth Amendment claims and recounts the actions of the 39th Congress: The Freedman’s Bureau, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Several speeches on the Amendment from the Congressional elections of 1866 are utilized, including those of Section 1 author John Bingham, Congressmen Columbus Delano, Rutherford B. Hayes, James Wilson, James Garfield, and Senator John Sherman, as well as Democrats who participated in what has been termed the most …

Sexting And Teenagers: Omg R U Going 2 Jail???, Catherine Arcabascio

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Defaming Muhammad: Dignity, Harm, And Incitement To Religious Hatred, Peter G. Danchin

Faculty Scholarship

The Danish cartoons controversy has generated a torrent of commentary seeking to define and defend competing conceptions of the normative implications of the affair. This Article addresses the question of how liberal democratic states ought to respond to visible manifestations of hatred, especially speech that constitutes incitement to religious hatred. Taking the publication of the Danish cartoons as its point of departure, the Article interrogates the complex historical and normative relationship between free speech and freedom of religion in the liberal democratic order and discusses the two critical questions of whether the cartoons give rise to a genuine conflict of …

Cyberspace Property Rights: Private Property Interests In The Context Of Internet Webpages, Taylor E. White

Proxy

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Martyr, First Amendment Opportunist: Commentary On Larry Flynt's Role In The Free Speech Debate, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

Not available.

The Government-Speech Doctrine: “Recently Minted,” But Counterfeit, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The foci of this Article are the ill-advised creation of a government-speech doctrine in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009), and its potential for substantial First Amendment mischief particularly with respect to the establishment of religion. Created out of whole cloth, with no regard for precedent, and in a case that did not even raise the issue of government speech, the doctrine permits the government to speak with viewpoint about controversial cultural issues upon which the government has no constitutional right to act. Asked to find unconstitutional the refusal of a municipality to allow a Summum …

When Statutory Regimes Collide:Will Wisconsin Right To Life And Citizens United Invalidate Federal Tax Regulation Of Campaign Activity?, Miriam Galston

GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works

In Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) and Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010), the United States Supreme Court dramatically reduced the ability of Congress to regulate campaign finance activities of corporations and others active in elections. Many of the same activities are still subject to restrictions by the Internal Revenue Code, which regulates the type and amount of political campaign activities that certain nonprofits exempt under federal tax law can engage in.

In the wake of the campaign finance decisions, the constitutionality of the tax law’s restrictions on campaign activity is now being challenged in …

Speech Platforms Law Review Symposium 2010: Government Speech: The Government's Ability To Compel And Restrict Speech, Abner S. Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The state plays different roles, and free speech doctrine should (and sometimes does) respect these roles. We properly insist (with some categorical exceptions) that the state not regulate private speech based on subject matter or point of view. If private speakers want to praise the Nazis or condemn homosexuality, the state has no place stopping them, even if firmly convinced these ideas are wrong. Why we have such firm protection for speech we abhor is a matter of much debate. To some extent, it's because we don't trust the state to make content-based judgments consistently as a matter of principle; …

Educating The United States Supreme Court At Summers' School: A Lesson On The "Special Character Of The Animal", Rafael Gely, Ramona L. Paetzold, Leonard Bierman

Faculty Publications

In this article, we explore the implications that Professor Summers' insights regarding public employment have for the Garcetti and Davenport decisions. In particular, we focus on the extent to which the political nature of public employment affects public employees' rights to freedom of speech as well as matters regarding the representational functions of public employee unions.

Regulating Student Speech: Suppression Versus Punishment, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

This article examines the Supreme Court’s student speech framework and argues that, in focusing exclusively on the types of student speech that can be restricted, the framework fails to build in any differentiation as to how such speech can be restricted. This is true even though there are two very distinct types of speech restrictions in schools: suppression of the speech itself; and after-the-fact punishment of the student speaker. As the student speech landscape itself gets more complex – given schools’ experimentation with new disciplinary regimes along with the tremendous rise in student cyber-speech – the blurring of that distinction …

Cyberspace Is Outside The Schoolhouse Gate: Offensive, Online Student Speech Receives First Amendment Protection, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Normative and doctrinal analysis shows that schools do not possess jurisdiction over offensive online student speech, at least when it does not cause a substantial disruption of the school environment. This article is a timely analysis on the limits of school jurisdiction over offensive online student speech.

On February 4, 2010, two different Third Circuit panels issued opinions reaching opposite conclusions on whether schools may punish students based on online speech created by students when they are off-campus. The Third Circuit vacated both decisions and is considering these cases in a consolidated en banc appeal. Another case addressing the same …

Free Speech At What Cost?: Snyder V. Phelps And Speech-Based Tort Liability, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

It is always a hard case when fundamental interests collide, but the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206 (4th Cir. 2009), cert. granted, 130 S. Ct. 1737 (2010), tilts doctrine too far in the direction of free speech, upsetting the Supreme Court’s careful weighing of interests that takes into account both the need for robust political debate and the need to protect private individuals from personal abuse. Where speech is directed at a private individual, especially one unwilling to hear but unable to escape the speaker’s message, the elements of the emotional distress claim more than …

Citizens United And The Corporate Form, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning direct corporate expenditures on political campaigns. The decision has been widely criticized and praised as a matter of First Amendment law. But it is also interesting as another step in the evolution of our legal views of the corporation. This Article argues that by viewing Citizens Unitedthrough the prism of theories about the corporate form, it is possible to see that the majority and the dissent departed from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of corporations. It is also possible to then predict …

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …