Law Commons^™

Pursuing A Universal Threshold For Regulating Incitement To Discrimination, Hostility Or Violence, Rebecca Meyer

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes that although the right to freedom of expression is essential, it is not absolute. The ICCPR prohibits speech that incites to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The provision prohibiting such speech is important to protect individuals and communities. Yet, not all countries are adequately enforcing its mandate. Such countries are letting inciting speech spread and, in some instances, violence has ensued. Conversely, some countries are taking enforcement too far, using the criminalization of inciting speech as a tool to silence political dissent. In light of the divergent interpretations—each problematic in its …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Recognizing The Free Press In The Crosshairs Across The Globe 12-12-2018, David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Duke Law & Technology Review

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their …

Are Two Clauses Really Better Than One? Rethinking The Religion Clause(S), 80 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (2018), Donald L. Beschle

Donald L. Beschle

The First Amendment begins with two references to the relationship between government and religion. The prohibition on establishment of religion and the guarantee of free exercise of religion, despite their obvious interaction, are generally regarded as separate clauses, and analyzed under tests developed under one or the other. The current state of Establishment Clause doctrine and Free Exercise doctrine is sharply contested and by no means clear. Supreme Court justices will usually classify a religious freedom case as either presenting non-establishment or free exercise issues. Having done so, they will apply the test framed for that clause. But does that …

Sb 339 - Education, Daniel F. Barrett, Alexander Hegner

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act amends the statutes in the Georgia Code applicable to the University System and Board of Regents statutes in the Georgia Code. It adds new sections that place affirmative requirements on the Board of Regents to adopt and publish new policies, which aim to encourage the dissemination of free speech across university campuses. Further, the Act directs that universities must implement disciplinary sanctions for anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the University System who interferes with the free speech of invited speakers and others on campus. Finally, the Board of Regents must publish annual reports regarding any barriers to …

The First Amendment In The Second Gilded Age, Jack M. Balkin

Buffalo Law Review

How do we pay for the digital public sphere? In the Second Gilded Age, the answer is primarily through digital surveillance and through finding ever new ways to make money out of personal data. Digital capitalism in the Second Gilded Age features an implicit bargain: a seemingly unlimited freedom to speak in exchange for the right to surveil and manipulate end users.To protect freedom of speech in the Second Gilded Age we must distinguish the values of free speech from the judicially created doctrines of the First Amendment. That is because the practical freedom to speak online depends on a …

Lady Justice Cannot Hear Your Prayers, Deborah Ogali

Fordham Law Review

The Islamic finance industry continues to grow quickly as the appetite for everything, from Sharia-compliant home mortgages and car loans to sophisticated financial products, increases. This growth has triggered an interest in sukuk, bond-like financial instruments. And while the international market for sukuk has long been dominated by foreign issuers and English law, the attraction of a niche market compatible with U.S. federal and international securities laws may propel increased participation by U.S. issuers and investors who wish to transact under U.S. federal and state laws. As with all Islamic financial products, sukuk transactions inherently pose a Sharia compliance risk. …

The Purpose (And Limits) Of The University, John Inazu

Utah Law Review

Scholars of the university have produced volumes about growing pressures on the coherence and purpose of institutions of higher education. Meanwhile, legal scholars’ writing about the university has typically focused on its First Amendment dimensions. This Article links insights from these two groups of scholars to explore the purpose of the university and defend it against increasing technological, ideological, and cultural pressures. It argues that a better understanding of the relationship between the First Amendment and the university can help strengthen the coherence of the university’s purpose against these pressures. The connection between the First Amendment and institutional purpose is …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Long-Term Preservation Of Public Art: From Cultural Heritage To The Confederacy, Maliha Ikram

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire

Duke Law & Technology Review

The ubiquity of cell phones in today’s society has forced courts to change or dismiss established, but inapplicable analytical frameworks. Two such frameworks in the school setting are regulations of student speech and of student searches. This Article traces the constitutional jurisprudence of both First Amendment off-campus speech protection and Fourth Amendment search standards as applied to the school setting. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California complicates both areas. Finally, it proposes a pragmatic solution: by recognizing a categorical First Amendment exception for “substantial threats” against the school community, courts could accommodate students’ constitutional …

How Supreme A Court?, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Facebook is planning an independent appeals process for content moderation decisions. But how much power will it have?

How To Make Facebook's 'Supreme Court' Work, Kate Klonick, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

The idea of a body that will decide what kind of content is allowed on the site is promising — but only if it’s done right.

Patin V. Lee, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 87 (Nov. 15, 2018) (En Banc), Haley Jaramillo

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court held that a statement by an attorney on her firm’s website summarizing a jury’s verdict is not a statement in direct connection with an issue under consideration by a judicial body. The Court explained that because the statement is not a “good faith communication in furtherance of the right . . . to free speech in direct connection with an issue of public concern,” it would not receive anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) protection under NRS § 41.660(1).

When Should The First Amendment Protect Judges From Their Unethical Speech?, Lynne H. Rambo

Lynne H. Rambo

Judges harm the judicial institution when they engage in inflammatory or overtly political extrajudicial speech. The judiciary can be effective only when it has the trust of the citizenry, and judicial statements of that sort render it impossible for citizens to see judges as neutral and contemplative arbiters. This lack of confidence would seem especially dangerous in times like these, when the citizenry is as polarized as it has ever been.

Ethical codes across the country (based on the Model Code of Judicial Conduct) prohibit judges from making these partisan, prejudicial or otherwise improper remarks. Any discipline can be undone, …

Symposium: Truth, Trust And The First Amendment In The Digital Age: Foreword: Whither The Fourth Estate?, Lyrissa Lidsky

Missouri Law Review

As a professor of Media Law, I have devoted my career over the past quarter of a century to the idea that the press plays a special role in our democracy. That role is largely encapsulated by the concept of the press as Fourth Estate – an unofficial branch of government in our scheme of separation of powers that checks the power of the three official branches. In our constitutional scheme, the press is the watchdog that informs us what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are up to and continually replenishes the stock of news – real …

You Are Not Cordially Invited: How Universities Maintain First Amendment Rights And Safety In The Midst Of Controversial On-Campus Speakers, Alyson R. Hamby

Cornell Law Review

Against a backdrop of national political turmoil, universities have experienced volatile reactions from their student bodies and outsiders in protest of the inflammatory speakers that schools host on their campuses. This Note discusses the tension between First Amendment protections and tort liability in the context of higher education. Specifically, it focuses on the interplay between controversial, on-campus speakers and the violent protests that arise in reaction to them. While examining this interaction, this Note emphasizes the legal duties of academic institutions in facilitating these on-campus speakers while also protecting their students’ constitutional rights and safety. In examining these conflicts, the …

Closed Meetings Under Foia Turn Fifty: The Old, The New, And What To Do, Tyler C. Southall

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Children Are Crying And Dying While The Supreme Court Is Hiding: Why Public Schools Should Have Broad Authority To Regulate Off-Campus Bullying "Speech", Jennifer Butwin

Fordham Law Review

Bullying has long been a concern for students, parents, teachers, and school administrators. But technological advances—including the internet, cell phones, and social media—have transformed the nature of bullying and allow “cyberbullies” to extend their reach far beyond the schoolhouse gate. The U.S. Supreme Court established that schools may regulate on-campus speech if the speech creates a substantial disruption of, or material interference with, school activities. However, the Court has yet to rule on a school’s ability to regulate students’ off-campus bullying speech. This Note examines how various courts have approached the issue, analyzes the current circuit split, and ultimately proposes …

Let Them Eat Cake: Why Public Proprietors Of Wedding Goods And Services Must Equally Serve All People, Labdhi Sheth, Molly Christ

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking A Day Off To Pray: Closing Schools For Religious Observance In Increasingly Diverse Schools, Ann E. Blankenship-Knox, Brett A. Geier

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Due Process, Free Expression, And The Administrative State, Martin H. Redish, Kristin Mccall

Notre Dame Law Review

The first Part of this Article will explore the theoretical foundations of procedural due process, focusing particularly on the essential due process requirement of a neutral adjudicator. We will follow that discussion with an analysis of the extent to which administrative adjudication of constitutional challenges to its regulatory authority or decisions satisfies the demands of procedural due process. After concluding that administrative regulators categorically fail to satisfy the requirements of due process, at least in the context of constitutional challenges to their regulatory authority, we will explain why the availability of post–administrative judicial review cannot cure the constitutional defect in …

Restoring The Establishment Clause To The States; Restoring Religious Tolerance, Golden Gate University Law Review

GGU Law Review Blog

In recent years, the Supreme Court has recognized the downturn of consistent and reliable Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The inconsistency of opinions and the often hostile outcomes have left the Establishment Clause in “shambles”. Justices have commented that there is no other area of law in more desperate need of repair than the Establishment Clause. One reason posited for the current state of confusion is that the Establishment Clause was never intended to be incorporated. Because of this, even the Supreme Court cannot agree on a single test or even consistently apply the many tests it currently employs.

Silencing State Courts, Jeffrey Steven Gordon

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In state courts across the Nation, an absolutist conception of the First Amendment is preempting common law speech torts. From intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion, to intentional interference with contractual relations and negligent infliction of emotional distress, state courts are dismissing speech tort claims on the pleadings because of the broad First Amendment defense recognized by Snyder v. Phelps in 2011. This Article argues, contrary to the scholarly consensus, that Snyder was a categorical departure from the methodology adopted by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the landmark 1964 case that first applied the First …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jenna Wims Hashway's Blog: First Amendment Lets Officials Mute But Not Block Twitter Critics 10/09/2018, Jenna Wims Hashway

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Audacity Of Protecting Racist Speech Under The National Labor Relations Act, Michael Z. Green

Michael Z. Green

This Article, written for a symposium hosted by the University of Chicago Legal Forum on the Disruptive Workplace, analyzes the most recent failures of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to determine a thoughtful and balanced approach in addressing racist speech. Imagine two employees in the private sector workplace are discussing the possibility of selecting a union to represent their interests regarding wages and working conditions. During this conversation, a black employee notes the importance of using their collective voices to improve working conditions and compares the activity of selecting a union with the Black Lives Matter protests aimed at …

Challenging Calls For Civility, Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt

Faculty Publications

In conjunction with her article "When Free Speech Disrupts Diversity Initiatives: What We Value and What We Do Not," Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt writes about civility codes and free speech for Academe Blog.

Kennedy's Last Term: A Report On The 2017-2018 Supreme Court, Marc O. Degirolami, Kevin C. Walsh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

Twenty-eighteen brought the end of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s tenure on the Supreme Court. We are now entering a period of uncertainty about American constitutional law. Will we remain on the trajectory of the last half-century? Or will the Court move in a different direction?

The character of the Supreme Court in closely divided cases is often a function of the median justice. The new median justice will be Chief Justice John Roberts if Kennedy’s replacement is a conservative likely to vote most often with Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito. This will mark a new phase of …

You Can’T Say That!: Public Forum Doctrine And Viewpoint Discrimination In The Social Media Era, Micah Telegen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The growing prevalence of privately-owned social media platforms is changing the way Americans and their governments communicate. This shift offers new opportunities, but also requires a reinterpretation of the First Amendment’s proscription of government limitations of speech. The public forum doctrine and its proscription of viewpoint discrimination seem particularly stretched by the digital revolution and the development of social media. In ongoing cases, litigants and courts have invoked the doctrine to limit the government’s ability to ‘block’ those who comment critically on government pages—much to the chagrin of those who note the private status of the companies hosting the pages …