Law Commons^™

Free Speech By The Light Of A Burning Cross, Jerome O'Callaghan

Cleveland State Law Review

For scholars of the First Amendment this case is an excellent example of the dilemmas posed by many of the doctrines created by the Court. While Justice Scalia proposes an elaborate and novel understanding of the limits of free speech regulation, Justice White responds with an assertion that Scalia's reasoning is "transparently wrong," and that his opinion is a "radical revision of First Amendment law." According to Justice Stevens, the majority opinion is no more than "an adventure in a doctrinal wonderland." Part II of this paper examines the attacks made by Justices White and Stevens against the majority opinion. …

Applying The First Amendment To Prayer In A Public University Locker Room: An Athlete's And Coach's Perspective, Gil Fried, Lisa Bradley

Marquette Sports Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Forum Doctrine And The Perils Of Categorical Thinking: Lessons From Lamb's Chapel, Rosemary C. Salomone

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

In recent years, the intersection of the Religion and Speech Clauses of the First Amendment has become increasingly controversial particularly in the context of public schooling. Religious group meetings, the distribution of religious literature, the discussion of religious themes, and the recitation of prayers at graduation ceremonies have all forced the courts to weigh and re-weigh the right to individual speech against the responsibility of the state to stay within the bounds of Establishment Clause doctrine. Several legal and political factors have fueled this debate. Although the Supreme Court has reaffirmed on several occasions the unconstitutionality of organized prayer …

Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Eberle discusses several limitations on governmental power to regulate public discourse. After examining the United States Supreme Court decisions of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paula nd Wisconsin v. Mitchell, Professor Eberle concludes that government should refrain from regulating speech itself. Rather, any restrictions should focus strictly on the problematic conduct underlying the speech which justifies regulation. Professor Eberle also concludes that the Court has implicitly recognized two distinct subcategories of "content" discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Both subcategories are presumptively unconstitutional and nominally subject to conventional strict scrutiny. The Court, however, finds viewpoint discrimination more dangerous …

Voice In Government: The People, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Our Conflicting Judgements About Pornography, Kent Greenfield

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speaking Of Race, Speaking Of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil Rights, And Civil Liberties, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Restricting The Right Of Correspondence In The Prison Context: Thornburgh V. Abbott And Its Progeny, Samuel J. Levine

Scholarly Works

In Thornburgh v. Abbott, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of regulations that allowed prison officials to reject certain publications sent by publishers to prisoners. Finding the regulations reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, the Court for the first time applied a reasonableness standard to restrictions that directly affected the First Amendment rights of nonprisoners. Part I of this Note briefly reviews the instrumental Supreme Court decisions addressing First Amendment rights in the prison context. This Part traces the development of the standard of review for prison regulations that restrict First Amendment freedoms for both prisoners and nonprisoners. It concludes …

The Cable-Telco Cross-Ownership Prohibition: First Amendment Infringement Through Obsolescence, Michael G. Oxley

Federal Communications Law Journal

Since 1970, the FCC has prohibited all telephone companies from providing video programming in their local service areas. The primary rationale behind this prohibition was to promote the cable industry. Since 1984, however, the cable industry has seen tremendous growth with very little competition. New technology and market demands have now necessitated a reevaluation of the ban on cable-telco cross-ownership. The Author argues that with the changes that have occurred in the marketplace, the ban is now both an invalid prior restraint and an infringement on commercial expression and thus a violation of the First Amendment rights of telephone companies. …

The Cable Act And Municipal Ownership: A Growing First Amendment Confrontation, Carl R. Ramey

Federal Communications Law Journal

In many communities across the nation cable subscribers depend on government-owned cable television systems for their communication services. This phenomenon may have started out to be fairly insignificant, but as a result of the cable explosion, government ownership of cable systems presents a threat to free expression. Governmental overbuilding and direct competition with private cable service providers have been the subject of unsuccessful First Amendment challenges. The threat of government control of cable systems, though, is potentially dramatic and poses serious First Amendment questions. The Author concludes that private ownership should be encouraged, and public ownership should only be allowed …

The Advocacy Of "Constitutional" Conduct, Marshall C. Derks

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Defending The “Decency Clause” In Finley V. National Endowment For The Arts, J. Sarah Kim

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

An Examination Of The Current Status Of Rating Agencies And Proposals For Limited Oversight Of Such Agencies, Francis A. Bottini Jr.

San Diego Law Review

This Comment analyzes the market for ratings of both financial securities and insurance companies, and finds significant problems with rating agencies, such as lethargy in changing ratings, political influence, unsolicited ratings, and inaccurate ratings. To ensure that the federal securities laws continue to protect investors, this Comment recommends limited oversight of rating agencies. It proposes that Congress enact legislation granting the Securities and Exchange Commission explicit authority to mandate that all nationally recognized statistical rating organizations register with the SEC, and to establish minimum standards for their designation. Finally, the Comment examines First Amendment concerns associated with the regulation of …

The New First Amendment And Its Impact On The Second, Daniel O. Conkle

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Role Of Religious Values In Judicial Decision Making, Scott C. Idleman

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The New First Amendment And Its Impact On The Second, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Reporter's Privilege In Georgia: "Qualified" To Do The Job?, Jeffrey S. York

Georgia State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Letter Re: A Property Right In Self Expression: Equality And Individualism In The Natural Law Of Intellectual Property, Henry H. Perritt Jr.

Scholarship Chronologically

I liked your A Property Right in Self Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property very much. I have the following comments or suggestions:

Lee V. Weisman: A New Age For Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Elizabeth Brandt

Articles

No abstract provided.

Rust V. Sullivan: Redirecting The Katzenbach V. Morgan Power, Paul Chuey

Seattle University Law Review

By deferring to the discretion of another branch of the federal government on a question of constitutional interpretation, the Rust Court implicitly resurrects and reshapes the long ignored doctrine of Katzenbach v. Morgan. Despite their different substantive issues, these two cases have a similar effect on the federal judiciary's role in constitutional interpretation. Section I of this Note describes the facts and history surrounding Rust and Morgan. Section II examines the Rust doctrine of judicial deference in the context of Morgan. Section III examines the Rust Court's approach to the First Amendment issues raised by the regulation …

Toward Meaningful Judicial Elections: A Case For Reform Of Canon 7, Michele Radosevich

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that elections can give us good judges who are both accountable to the voters and able to decide cases impartially. To accomplish this, we must, in the words of one local media commentator, “take off the muzzle and allow judges to discuss issues.” But before one can propose change, one should understand the present system and the purposes it was designed to serve. Part II of this Comment examines Canon 7 of the Washington Code of Judicial Conduct and the balance it strikes between accountability and impartiality. Part III explores how the Canon has been interpreted in …

The Right To Religion-Based Exemptions In Early America: The Case Of Conscientious Objectors To Conscription, Ellis M. West

Political Science Faculty Publications

One of the more controversial decisions handed down by the Supreme Court in recent years was its decision in the case of Employment Division, Oregon v. Smith, which raised the basic issue of whether the free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees a right to religion-based exemptions, i.e., whether it gives persons and groups a prima facie right to be exempt from having to obey valid laws when they have religious reasons for noncompliance. More specifically, in Smith, two Native Americans claimed that their prosecution for using an illegal drug, peyote, was precluded by the free exercise clause …

Targeting Conduct: A Constitutional Method Of Penalizing Hate Crimes, Kevin N. Ainsworth

Fordham Urban Law Journal

Forty-three states have enacted hate-crime statutes. These laws generally fall into one of two classes, either hate-speech or penalty-enhancement statutes. The former has sought to control virulent expression by punishing the utterance or display of words or symbols that the user knows will arouse anger in others on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or some other immutable characteristic. The United States Supreme Court examined an ordinance of this type in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and found that the law infringed on the First Amendment right to free speech. Penalty enhancement statutes vary slightly among states, but …

The Need For Fair Trials Does Not Justify A Disciplinary Rule That Broadly Restricts An Attorney's Speech, Thomas Gibson, Diana Parker

Fordham Urban Law Journal

In "Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada," the Supreme Court held a Nevada law prohibiting attorneys from making extra-judicial statements that could reasonably be expected to lead to prejudiced proceedings unconstitutionally vague. The safe harbor provision of New York's restriction on extra-judicial attorney speech seems to suffer from a similar deficiency, and must therefore be amended. To cure vagueness concerns, an amended rule should pay heed to the timing of prohibited public statements by attorneys, limiting speech restrictions to the month preceding the start of the trial. The amended rule should also include a clear and present danger standard to …

How To Do Things With The First Amendment, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Is The New York Times "Actual Malice" Standard Really Necessary? A Comparative Perspective, Geoffrey Bennett, Russell L. Weaver

Journal Articles

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the United States Supreme Court extended First Amendment guarantees to defamation actions. Many greeted the Court's decision with joy. After the decision, many years elapsed during which "there were virtually no recoveries by public officials in libel actions."

The most important component of the New York Times decision was its "actual malice" standard. This standard provided that, in order to recover against a media defendant, a public official must demonstrate that the defendant acted with "malice." In other words, the official must show that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false …

Constitutional Law--First Amendment--No Constitutional Right To Vote For Donald Duck: The Supreme Court Upholds The Constitutionality Of Write-In Voting Bans In Burdick V. Takushi, Jeanne M. Kaiser

Faculty Scholarship

This Note examines the Supreme Court decision in Burkick v. Takushi in detail and questions the Court's conclusion that the voters' interest in casting write-in votes is so slight that write-in bans are presumptively valid. The Note concludes that the Burdick decision is both inconsistent with the Court's previous ballot access jurisprudence, and restricts the electoral process at a time when voters are clamoring for more diverse choices in the voting booth. Section I of this Note briefly reviews a number of cases that considered the constitutionality of legislation governing candidate access to election ballots. The ballot access cases are …

Congressional Reform: Can Term Limitations Close The Door On Political Careerism., Julia C. Wommack

St. Mary's Law Journal

Addressing Congressional woes requires reform. Entrenched incumbency is a detriment to the legislative system. Although the enactment of initiatives restricting Congressional terms limits signal voters agree, better alternatives exist. The only prerequisites found in the Constitution for serving in Congress are age, residency, and citizenship. While the twenty-second amendment proscribes the presidential office limit maximum as two terms, no such limitations exist for a congressman or congresswoman. Sitting incumbents have substantial advantages over their challengers. Incumbents success ratio exceeds 80% in Senate races and is approximately 90% for elections in the House of Representatives. Congressional term limitations attempt to eliminate …

Silence And The Word, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Advocacy And Scholarship, Paul F. Campos

Publications

The apex of American legal thought is embodied in two types of writings: the federal appellate opinion and the law review article. In this Article, the author criticizes the whole enterprise of doctrinal constitutional law scholarship, using a recent U.S. Supreme Court case and a Harvard Law Review article as quintessential examples of the dominant genre. In a rhetorical tour de force, the author argues that most of modern constitutional scholarship is really advocacy in the guise of scholarship. Such an approach to legal scholarship may have some merit as a strategic move towards a political end; however, it has …