Law Commons^™

If You Work For The Government, Then Shut Your Mouth: Garcetti V. Ceballos And The Future Of Public Employee Speech, Joseph E. Hardgrave

ExpressO

This article dismantles the majority's reasoning in Garcetti v. Ceballos. A theory is proposed to why the Court broke with prior precedence and the sweeping effect of the ambigous holding is examined.

Access To Audiences As A First Amendment Right: Its Relevance And Implications For Electronic Media Policy, Philip M. Napoli, Sheea T. Sybblis

ExpressO

When the issue of speakers’ rights of access arises in media regulation and policy contexts, the focus typically is on the concept of speakers’ rights of access “to the media,” or “to the press.” This right usually is premised on the audience’s need for access to diverse sources and content. In contrast, in many non-mediated contexts, the concept of speakers’ rights of access frequently is defined in terms of the speaker’s own First Amendment right of access to audiences. This paper explores the important distinctions between these differing interpretations of a speaker’s access rights and argues that the concept of …

Dignity - The Enemy From Within, Guy E. Carmi

ExpressO

The manuscript challenges the use of human dignity as an independent free speech justification. The articulation of free speech in human dignity terms carries unwarranted potential consequences that may result in limiting free speech rather than protecting it. This possible outcome makes human dignity inadequate as a free speech justification.

The manuscript also demonstrates why articulations of the rationales behind the “argument from dignity” are either superfluous, since they are aptly covered by the “argument from autonomy,” or simply too broad and speech-restrictive to be considered a free speech justification. As a matter of principle, the nexus between freedom of …

Against Freedom Of Commercial Expression, Tamara R. Piety

ExpressO

An article that announces itself in the title as “against freedom” has a heavy burden of persuasion to carry. At this time and in this place, it seems almost un-American to be “against freedom,” (however much our civil liberties have in fact been circumscribed in recent years). Nevertheless, the most significant word in the title is not “against” or “freedom,” but “commercial.” Conventional wisdom in the First Amendment area would have it that there is no meaningful basis on which to distinguish between commercial speech and other speech for purposes of the First Amendment. And in recent years the courts …

Can Commercial Corporations Engage In Non-Commercial Speech?, Tom Bennigson

ExpressO

I argue that all speech by commercial corporations, regardless of content, should be classified as “commercial speech,” a category not protected as fully as speech closer to the core of First Amendment concerns. Although this position is not currently accepted, surprisingly, it is supported by various aspects of accepted legal doctrine.

After a short critical introduction to commercial speech doctrine, I argue briefly that the legal requirement that all corporate activity be directed toward profit entails that all authorized corporate speech must be commercial in a significant sense. The principal part of the paper then surveys the First Amendment interests …

"You Can't Wear That To Vote": The Constitutionality Of State Laws Prohibiting The Wearing Of Political Message Buttons, Kimberly J. Tucker

ExpressO

My research for this article began on Election Day 2004 when I was told that I could not wear a campaign button into the polling room while voting in Virginia. The article outlines the laws of all 50 states that restrict a voter’s right to speak in and around polling places. It focuses on the 10 states that explicitly prohibit a voter from wearing “buttons” to the polls.

Equal Protection In The World Of Art And Obscenity: The Art Photographer's Latent Struggle With Obscenity Standards In Contemporary America, Elaine P. Wang

ExpressO

In the realm of obscenity law in the United States, photography as an art form is not on equal footing with more traditional art forms such as painting, drawing, and sculpture. This is a latent dilemma for artistic photographers because the law itself – in the form of state obscenity laws and the Supreme Court’s three-pronged test in Miller v. California – does not explicitly set forth varied standards of obscenity based on artistic medium. However, given the marginalization of photography in art history, there exists a bias against photography as “serious art.” Furthermore, evidence of the differential treatment of …

Circular 230 Opinion Standards, Legal Ethics And First Amendment Limitations On The Regulation Of Professional Speech By Lawyers, David T. Moldenhauer

ExpressO

This article addresses the legal ethics and First Amendment implications of recent Treasury Department regulations governing legal opinions on tax-motivated transactions. As discussed in the article, the regulations are intended to address the significant policy and budgetary issue of practitioners’ involvement in the development, marketing and encouragement of abusive tax shelters. However, the article concludes that the regulations are in many respects an inappropriate response to these problems because their prohibitions prevent a lawyer from giving taxpayers a complete, informed assessment of their rights. As such, they create significant ethical conflicts and deny the public legal advice. More generally, they …

The Suffocation Of Free Speech Under The Gravity Of Danger Of Terrorism, Tim Davis

ExpressO

On July 14, 2005, Ali al-Timimi was sentenced to life in prison plus 70 years for acts of pure speech. The United States government contended that Timimi, through his lectures and direct personal appeals, induced and/or aided and abetted local Muslim men to leave the country and pursue jihad training with the intent to defend the Taliban against all potential enemies, including the United States. Buried in nearly 200 pages of jury instructions was a single paragraph that unceremoniously described the law of protected speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio. At first blush, Brandenburg seemed to unequivocally lay down the rule …

Fair Use And The First Amendment: Corporate Control Of Copyright Is Stifling Documentary Making And Thwarting The Aims Of The First Amendment, Paige Gold

ExpressO

Documentary motion pictures constitute a crucial part of contemporary public debate, because in today’s highly consolidated mass media environment, documentaries offer the kinds of independent voices that the First Amendment was designed to protect. However, current intellectual property practices are chilling speech by forcing documentary filmmakers to tailor their films to accommodate new, strict licensing practices. When filmmakers are compelled to edit their work to meet insurance requirements, it harms the interests of not just the filmmaker, but also the public. Thus, the “clearance culture,” in which anything and everything that could possibly lead to a lawsuit must be cleared, …