Law Commons^™

Alternative Restrictions Of Sex Offenders' Social Media Use & The Freedom Of Speech, Norah M. Sloss

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

When Privacy Almost Won: Time, Inc. V. Hill (1967), Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

Drawing on previously unexplored and unpublished archival papers of Richard Nixon, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case, and the justices of the Warren Court, this article tells the story of the seminal First Amendment case Time, Inc. v. Hill (1967). In Hill, the Supreme Court for the first time addressed the conflict between the right to privacy and freedom of the press. The Court constitutionalized tort liability for invasion of privacy, acknowledging that it raised First Amendment issues and must be governed by constitutional standards. Hill substantially diminished privacy rights; today it is difficult if not impossible to recover against …

By Any Other Name: Image Advertising And The Commercial Speech Doctrine In Jordan V. Jewel, Kelly Miller

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Comment focuses on the commercial speech doctrine as applied to modern advertising strategies, specifically, corporate image advertising. It centers on the recent litigation between basketball superstar Michael Jordan and a Chicago-area grocery chain, Jewel-Osco. When Michael Jordan was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame, Jewel-Osco was invited to submit a congratulatory ad for a commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated devoted exclusively to Jordan’s career and accomplishments. Because Jordan had spent the bulk of his storied professional basketball career with the Chicago Bulls, the ad seemed a natural fit. Jordan, who did not give permission for his name to …

Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act: The True Culprit Of Internet Defamation, Heather Saint

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

This Note highlights the growing concern of Internet defamation and the lack of viable legal remedies available to its victims. Internet defamation is internet speech with the purpose to disparage another’s reputation. At common law, a victim of alleged defamation has the right to file suit against not only the original speaker of the defamatory statements, but the person or entity to give that statement further publication as well. In certain cases even the distributor, such as a newspaper stand, can be held liable for a defamation claim. However, liability due to defamatory speech on the Internet is quite different. …

La Libertad De Expresión Frente A Los Delitos De Negacionismo Y De Provocación Al Odio Y A La Violencia: Sombras Sin Luces En La Reforma Del Código Penal, Germán M. Teruel Lozano

Germán M. Teruel Lozano

Racist and negationist speeches are at the border of tolerable messages in a democratic society. This paper will explore the limits to freedom of speech in the Spanish law, which is configured as a constitutional order «open» and based on the idea of «person», contrasting with the militant model characteristic of the European Convention on Human Rights. Then, once outlined the content of this freedom, the paper will submit to constitutional review the Holocaust denial crime and hate speech crimes after the reform of the Criminal Code in 2015, from a constitutional-criminal law perspective.

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno

James E. Moliterno

“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”

There Are No Racists Here: The Rise Of Racial Extremism, When No One Is Racist, Jeannine Bell

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

At first glance hate murders appear wholly anachronistic in post-racial America. This Article suggests otherwise. The Article begins by analyzing the periodic expansions of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the protection for racist expression in First Amendment doctrine. The Article then contextualizes the case law by providing evidence of how the First Amendment works on the ground in two separate areas —the enforcement of hate crime law and on university campuses that enact speech codes. In these areas, those using racist expression receive full protection for their beliefs. Part III describes social spaces—social media and employment where slurs and epithets …

All Things In Proportion - American Rights Review And The Problem Of Balancing, Jud Mathews, Alec Stone Sweet

Jud Mathews

This paper describes and evaluates the evolution of rights doctrines in the United States, focusing on the problem of balancing as a mode of rights adjudication. In the current Supreme Court, deep conflict over whether, when, and how courts balance is omnipresent. Elsewhere, we find that the world’s most powerful constitutional courts have embraced a stable, analytical procedure for balancing, known as proportionality. Today, proportionality analysis (PA) constitutes the defining doctrinal core of a transnational, rights-based constitutionalism. This Article critically examines alleged American exceptionalism, from the standpoint of comparative constitutional law and practice. Part II provides an overview of how …

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa

Akron Law Review

“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz

Akron Law Review

"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."

First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Broadcasting; Obscenity; Fcc V. Pacifica Foundation, James E. Moliterno

Akron Law Review

“ ‘I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss L words and the words you can't say . . .the words you couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves... the ones that will curve your spine [and] grow hair on your hands ....’ While this is the satiric opinion of George Carlin, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a bare majority of the United States Supreme Court have embraced it as their genuine opinion.' They have decided to protect the public from the fate of hearing Carlin's social criticism regarding seven ‘dirty’ words.”

The Supreme Court And The Press: Freedom Or Privilege?, Sandra Bradley

Akron Law Review

This comment will examine the Supreme Court's spring, 1978 decisions as they affected first amendment rights, and will assess their impact upon the press. Particular emphasis will be placed on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily as it affects first amendment, as well as fourth amendment, protections.

Obscenity Law In Ohio, Richard H. Harris

Akron Law Review

Ohio's new obscenity statutes enacted in 1972 and made effective on January 1, 1974 are interesting to examine in light of recent Supreme Court holdings. The changes made in Ohio's obscenity statutes over the years reflect the Supreme Court's guidelines in varying degrees. Before looking at some of these recent statutes, as well as the present one in effect today, it is necessary to review the major Supreme Court decisions which have set these guidelines.

Will Tabloid Journalism Ruin The First Amendment For The Rest Of Us?, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

The "Do-Not-Call List" Controversy: A Parable Of Privacy And Speech, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

None available.

Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

None available.

Content And Context: The Contributions Of William Van Alstyne To First Amendment Interpretation, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

No abstract provided.

Words "Which By Their Very Utterance Inflict Injury": Evolving Treatment Of Inherently Dangerous Speech In Free Speech Law And Theory, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

From Hit Man To Encyclopedia Of Jihad: How To Distinguish Freedom Of Speech From Terrorist Training, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

What Passes For Policy And Proof In First Amendment Litigation?, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

Not available.

Should The Brandenburg V. Ohio Incitement Test Apply In Media Violence Cases?, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

None available.

Rethinking First Amendment Assumptions About Racist And Sexist Speech, Rodney A. Smolla

Rod Smolla

No abstract provided.

Mathew Fraser Sheds His Consititutional Rights To Freedom Of Speech At The Schoolhouse Gates, Karrie M. Kalai

Akron Law Review

The Constitution does not bestow an "unbridled license giving immunity for every possible use of language." The first amendment is not the guardian of unregulated talkativeness. Accordingly, the state's power to control the conduct of children reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults, and the well-being of children is one subject entirely within the state's constitutional power to regulate. While children clearly have some first amendment rights, these rights differ in important respects from the rights enjoyed by adults. As the Supreme Court noted, "the world of children is not strictly part of the adult realm of free …

Freedom Of Speech And The Problem Of The Lawful Harmful Public Reaction: Adult Use Cases Of Renton And Mini Theatres, Charles H. Clarke

Akron Law Review

The constitutional right of freedom of speech protects the speech of adult erotic entertainment. The state, consequently, can not suppress such speech unless it is obscene. This constitutional protection helped to turn adult erotic entertainment into one of the nation's growth industries.

The constitutionally protected speech of adult erotic entertainment includes explicit sex films, nude dancing and erotic books. Various adult land uses sprung up to satisfy an apparent large public demand for this entertainment. Adult film theaters, of course, show filmed reproductions of live sex on a big screen. Some taverns offer nude dancing. Some adult bookstores sell more …

Kuhlmeier V. Hazelwood School District: The First Amendment Rights Of Public High School Students, Edward S. Muse

Akron Law Review

In Kuhlmeier v. Hazelwood School District, the Supreme Court held that high school students' first amendment rights were not violated when their principal deleted articles from the school newspaper. The Court stated that the school newspaper was not a "public forum" for expression which normally receives full first amendment protection. The Court further held that the school principal did not violate students' first amendment rights when he restricted the printing of articles due to the effect that they could have on other students.

The Supreme Court's decision will undoubtedly curtail students' rights to free speech and press. This casenote …

Hate Speech, Free Speech And The University, Robert W. Mcgee

Akron Law Review

Students and faculty face possible retribution for expressing unpopular ideas, making statements that may be offensive to someone, or even for asking legitimate questions that deal with race, sex, ethnicity or sexual preference. A "thought police" mentality has infested the university, just as McCarthyism did in the 1950s. This article explores the current state of this mentality and discusses the problems inherent in trying to preserve and protect the right of free speech in the university

Rethinking The Context Of Hate Speech Regulation, Robert Kahn

Robert Kahn

In this essay I review Michael Herz and Peter Molnar (eds.) The Content and Context of Hate Speech: Rethinking Regulation and Responses (Cambridge University Press 2012). As I show in the review, the Herz and Molnar volume advances our understanding of comparative hate speech regulation in three ways. First, the essays suggest that local context has a role to play in understanding, assessing, and applying hate speech regulations, even in an age when online hate speech is pressuring states and regions to reach common solutions to these problems. Second, the essays rebut the commonly held premise that the United States …

Lorillard Tobacco Co. V. Reilly: The Supreme Court Sends First Amendment Guarantees Up In Smoke By Applying The Commercial Speech Doctrine To Content-Based Regulations, Kerri L. Keller

Akron Law Review

This note examines why the Supreme Court’s application of the commercial speech doctrine to purely “content-based” regulations erodes First Amendment guarantees. Section II provides a brief history of the First Amendment and discusses the different levels of judicial scrutiny applied in First Amendment cases. Section III provides the statement of facts, the procedural history, and the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lorillard. Finally, Part IV examines the decision in Lorillard and discusses why the Court should have applied strict scrutiny to the regulations at issue. It further discusses how the Court’s refusal to apply strict scrutiny to content-based commercial …

Because I Said So: An Examination Of Parental Naming Rights, Ashley N. Moscarello

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Naming a child is often one of the most exciting parts of having a baby. Some parents, of course, choose to be more creative and unique, which leads to some very interesting names like Toilet Queen, Acne Fountain, Crimson Tide Redd, Messiah, Candy Stohr, and Violence. Although some of these names are quite absurd, should the government be able to tell parents that they have crossed the line?

When parents agree about the name they want to give their child, should the state or courts be able to intervene in that decision if the state has problems with the name? …

The Politics Of The Mass Media And The Free Speech Principle, Steven Shiffrin

Steven H. Shiffrin

No abstract provided.