Law Commons^™

Fundamental First Amendment Principles, David L. Hudson Jr., Jacob David Glenn

Northern Illinois University Law Review

First Amendment law is highly complex, even labyrinthine. But, there are fundamental principles in First Amendment law that provide a baseline for a core understanding. These ten fundamental principles are: (1) the First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government; (2) the First Amendment abhors viewpoint discrimination and often content, or subject-matter discrimination; (3) the First Amendment protects a great deal of symbolic speech or expressive conduct; (4) the First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive and even repugnant speech; (5) the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech; (6) the First Amendment often depends upon …

You Have The Duty To Remain Silent: How Workplace Gag Rules Frustrate Police Accountability, Frank D. Lomonte, Jessica Terkovich

Akron Law Review

This Article traces the First Amendment caselaw that, for more than half a century, has sided with speakers facially challenging overbroad workplace policies that forbid sharing information with the press and public. The Article then reports on the results of a nationwide survey of police and sheriff’s department policies by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, concluding that well over half of the nation’s biggest law enforcement agencies have rules on the books that resemble—or are identical to—those struck down as unconstitutional when challenged, at times in defiance of binding circuit-level precedent. The Article examines why these legally dubious …

“Rap Music On Trial”: Examining The Consequences Of Rap Lyrics Being Admissible At Trial, Malik Stewart

SLU Law Journal Online

Rap lyrics are being deemed admissible in court to convict criminal defendants. In this article, Malik Stewart considers the consequences of admitting rap lyrics to evidence to prove a defendant’s guilt, possible First Amendment violations, the efforts to prevent prosecutors from using rap lyrics as evidence, and the ways in which rap music is being targeted by prosecutors. The article also considers the emergence of Drill music and what to expect moving forward.

The Shurtleff Conundrum: Resolving The Conflict In Government-Speech And Public Forum Analysis, James Walraven

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Shurtleff v. Boston is the Supreme Court's latest opportunity to clarify the murky line between the "government-speech" and "public forum" doctrines. The Court will decide whether the City of Boston violated the Free Speech Clause by refusing to fly a flag with Christian imagery in front of City Hall. The City had previously allowed the flying of numerous national and cultural flags by various organizations, but refused to fly a conservative social organization's "Christian flag" because of the City's fear of appearing to endorse a particular religion.

Under the public forum doctrine, private citizens' free speech is protected to varying …

Public Policy And Religion In The Pandemic: U.S. Constitution And The First Amendment, Stephen Covell, Diane Riggs, Cameron Borg

Modules for Teaching Pandemic Response and Religion in the USA

The following teaching module is designed for high school and college level instructors who seek to teach a lesson on the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the relationship between church and state. The teaching module features a lesson plan, case studies, and assignments that can be incorporated as the instructor sees fit. This teaching module was created by Western Michigan University's Department of Comparative Religion.

Beyond Citizens United: Democratizing The Economy In The Wake Of The Small-Dollar Revolution, Jay Hedges

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Citizens United increases the power of corporations over our political process. Under current corporate governance laws, permission for corporations to behave as political actors ignores the consent of a particularly important constituency of these business entities—labor. This neglect of workers reveals three democratic crises resulting from the corporate structure in the United States, which have only intensified following Citizens United. First, while the political speaking-power of corporations has been substantially increased, these entities lack legitimacy to speak on behalf of their labor constituency. Second, the use of corporate profits, generated by the corporation’s labor force, as the means …

Against Political Speech, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has dedicated itself to the proposition that political speech, more than any other category of speech, is deserving of the highest protection. A succession of cases amply supports this proposition. In Virginia v. Black, the Court announced that "lawful political speech [is] at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." The Court similarly declared in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy that the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application" to political speech. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court held that "handing out leaflets in the advocacy of …

Establishment’S Political Priority To Free Exercise, Marc O. Degirolami

Notre Dame Law Review

Americans are beset by disagreement about the First Amendment. Progressive scholars are attacking the venerable liberal view that First Amendment rights must not be constricted to secure communal, political benefits. To prioritize free speech rights, they say, reflects an unjust inflation of individual interest over our common political commitments. These disagreements afflict the Religion Clauses as well. Critics claim that religious exemption has become more important than the values of disestablishment that define the polity. Free exercise exemption, they argue, has subordinated establishment.

This Article contests these views. The fundamental rules and norms constituting the political regime—what the Article calls …

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

Equal Speech Protection, Francesca L. Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Political speech is not special. No type of speech is. First Amendment doctrine ubiquitously claims to value speech on a hierarchy, with political speech occupying the highest and most-protected position, followed by commercial speech and speech on private matters, with low-value speech on the bottom, least-protected rung. This hierarchy is a myth. The true but hidden framework of free speech law is actually one of equal speech protection. All speech, including political speech, receives comparable protection--and that level of protection is quite moderate across the board. Specifically, the equal protection speech receives permits the state to regulate speech in order …

Fundamental First Amendment Principles, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

In Fundamental First Amendment Principles, published in the Northern Illinois University Law Review, David L. Hudson Jr. and Jacob David Glenn distill the complexity of modern free-speech jurisprudence into ten foundational principles that structure First Amendment analysis. The Article emphasizes that the core of the First Amendment lies in protecting criticism of government and prohibiting viewpoint discrimination, while also safeguarding symbolic expression, offensive and unpopular speech, and the right not to speak. At the same time, the authors underscore that not all speech is protected, identifying historically recognized categorical exceptions such as incitement, true threats, obscenity, and defamation. The …

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lochner's Revenge: Tiered Scrutiny And The Acceptance Of Judicial Subjectivity, Phillip J. Closius

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan

Pepperdine Law Review

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioner, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

No. 21-418
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This case offers the Court a much-needed opportunity to resolve the longstanding confusion caused by its conflicting and erroneous interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Although recent decisions clarify that the government may not suppress private religious expression, the Court has yet to clear away an undergrowth of older precedents that are often read to suggest the opposite. Rather than permit those outdated decisions to persist and perpetuate confusion, the Court should …

Campaign Finance Reform, Union Dues, And The First Amendment: The Collision Of Politics And Rights, Mark Adams

Articles

No abstract provided.

Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord

Washington Law Review

Recent increases in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws have generated new conversations in the free exercise of religion debate. While federal courts have been wrestling with claims brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since the nineteenth century, city and state efforts to codify legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the mid-twentieth century birthed novel challenges. Private individuals who do not condone intimate same-sex relationships and/or gender non-conforming behavior, on religious grounds seek greater legal protection for the ability to refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ+ persons. Federal and state courts must determine how to resolve these …

The Public Benefits Of Press Specialness, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In many circumstances, a broad umbrella of shared rights for the press and the public is perfectly adequate. But there are also times when statutorily, and even constitutionally, we should be providing unique protection to those who, if granted rights beyond those available to all speakers, will use those rights to benefit society as a whole. In these areas, our ongoing refusal to conceptualize and legally recognize the specialness of the press function has robbed us of public benefits.

The Freedom of Information Act context is a perfect illustration of this. Federal agencies are so swamped by requesters with non-newsworthy, …

Reassociating Student Rights: Giving It The Ole College Try, Tyler Mlakar

Arkansas Law Review

At the beginning of 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared Coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) a “public health emergency of international concern.” Governments around the world began instituting citywide and even nationwide “lockdowns.” In the United States, the approach was far more splintered. While there was no nationwide lockdown, states across the country instituted varying measures ranging from “shelter-in-place” and “stay at home” orders, to school closures, limits on the size of public gatherings, “mask mandates,” and even some states allowing restaurants and bars to remain open. Across the United States, these measures have resulted in the most pervasive governmental …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

The Disappearing Freedom Of The Press, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

At this moment of unprecedented decline of local news and amplified attacks on the American press, attention is turning to the protection the Constitution might provide to journalism and the journalistic function. New signals that at least some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court might be willing to rethink the core press-protecting precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan has intensified these conversations. But this scholarly dialogue appears to be taking place against a mistaken foundational assumption: that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to articulate and embrace at least some notion of freedom of the press. Despite the First Amendment …

Nobody's Business: A Novel Theory Of The Anonymous First Amendment, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Law Faculty Scholarship

Namelessness is a double-edged sword. It can be a way of avoiding prejudice and focusing attention on one's ideas, but it can also be a license to defame and misinform. These points have been widely discussed. Still, the breadth of these discussions has left some of the depths unplumbed, because rarely is the question explicitly faced: what is the normative significance of namelessness itself, as opposed to its effects under different conditions? My answer is that anonymity is an evasion of responsibility for one's conduct. Persons should ordinarily be held responsible for what they do, but in some cases, where …

Disinformation On Trial: Fighting Foreign Disinformation By Empowering The Victims, Ari B. Rubin

Cardozo Law Review

Foreign disinformation catapulted into the national spotlight with the 2016 presidential election, but its impact is not confined to the electoral map or season. This Article addresses the threat of foreign disinformation by proposing a new statute: a private right of action, enabling harmed persons to directly sue state or private actors, foreign or domestic, who knowingly or recklessly spread disinformation from abroad. Scholars and policymakers have proposed other, far-flung solutions ranging from greater online security to outright censorship. Each of those ideas stumbles on common challenges and lacks a valuable ingredient: an interested party, directly harmed by the foreign …

Searching For Truth In The First Amendment's True Threat Doctrine, Renee Griffin

Michigan Law Review

Threats of violence, even when not actually carried out, can inflict real damage. As such, state and federal laws criminalize threats in a wide range of circumstances. But threats are also speech, and free speech is broadly protected by the First Amendment. The criminalization of threats is nonetheless possible because of Supreme Court precedents denying First Amendment protection to “true threats.” Yet a crucial question remains unanswered: What counts as a true threat?

This Note examines courts’ attempts to answer this question and identifies the many ambiguities that have resulted from those attempts. In particular, this piece highlights three frontiers …

The Hollywood Circuit’S Protection Of The Batmobile Provides An Uncertain Future For First Amendment Protections, Nicole Geiser

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This Comment analyzes the potentially damaging impact the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Towle could have on modern copyright law and the First Amendment. Part I will provide an overview of modern copyright law, challenges faced when deciding the level of protection that should be afforded to characters, and the important difference between literary characters and visually depicted characters and how it can affect the degree of protection allowed. Part II will discuss the history of character copyright, specifically, the different tests adopted by circuit courts and the impact each one has on the protection of characters. Part III will analyze …

Protecting Women's Voices: Preventing Retaliatory Defamation Claims In The #Metoo Context, Nicole Ligon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

As part of a personal commitment to positively utilize my legal skills, I joined the Legal Network for Gender Equity, a group of attorneys who support individuals seeking to come forward about their experiences with sexual harassment and assault. Through this network, I regularly counsel women who want to share their stories but are concerned that by doing so, they may open themselves up to costly defamation suits from their aggressors. Their concerns are not so much rooted in any notion that their stories are or could actually be defamatory. Instead, these concerns often stem from a recognition that …

Government Speech And The Establishment Clause, Alexander Tsesis

Scholarly Publications

This Article argues that the Establishment Clause prohibits public actors or agencies from adopting religious messages and symbols. The limitation is explicitly stated in the First Amendment, which restricts government from encroaching on religious belief and ritual. Separation between private and public spheres protects thought, belief, and practice under the Free Exercise Clause and prevents official orthodoxy under the Establishment Clause. One religion clause requires government to respect deeply held personal beliefs that are parallel to beliefs in God, while the other clause prohibits government from participating in sectarian conduct. Government speech can describe, explain, contextualize, and characterize religious rituals …

Show Me The Money The Applicability Of Contract Laws Ratification And Tenderback Doctrines To Title Vii Releases, Rachel E. Deming

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Professional Speech At Scale, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

Regulatory actions affecting professional speech are facing new challenges from all sides. On one side, the Supreme Court has grown increasingly protective of professionals’ free speech rights, and it has subjected regulations affecting that speech to heightened levels of scrutiny that call into question traditional regulatory practices in both law and medicine. On the other side, technological developments, including the growth of massive digital platforms and the introduction of artificial intelligence programs, have created brand new problems of regulatory scale. Professional speech is now able to reach a wide audience faster than ever before, creating risks that misinformation will cause …

Regulating Fraud On The Marketplace Of Ideas: Federal Securities Law As A Model For Constitutionally Permissible Social Media Regulation, Michael M. Epstein

Seattle University Law Review

This article begins with an introduction discussing speech falsity and the duty under U.S. law by comparing commercial and noncommercial speech. Part I explores the problem of online disinformation. Part II addresses online disinformation in a non-commercial context. Part III contains three subsections assesses non-transactional commercial speech as a basis for non-commercial disinformation regulation. Part IV advocates for a fiduciary duty to fashion a remedy. Part V of this article concludes by suggesting a possible solution for creating a online disinformation law that could survive the First Amendment.