Law Commons^™

Blood Libel: Radical Islam’S Conscription Of The Law Of Defamation Into A Legal Jihad Against The West—And How To Stop It, Robert A. Pate

Robert A Pate

On May 19th, 2009, a panel of distinguished legal professionals assembled in Washington, D.C. at a conference, entitled Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam, to discuss radical Islam’s exploitation of Western libel laws to silence authors and journalists who seek to expose terror-financing networks and criticize radical Islam. The debate also embodied a cresting wave of public concern about the surprising ways Western laws enable this assault.This paper seeks to call attention to two critical mistakes, which were perpetuated by panelists at the conference and which are consistently present in current libel lawfare scholarship. Foremost, no one has yet …

A Free Speech Right To Impugn Judicial Integrity In Court Proceedings, Margaret C. Tarkington

Margaret C Tarkington

Throughout the United States, state and federal courts discipline and sanction attorneys who make disparaging remarks about the judiciary and thereby impugn judicial integrity. In so doing, courts have almost universally rejected the constitutional standard established in New York Times v. Sullivan for punishing speech regarding government officials. While courts have imposed severe sanctions regardless of the forum where the speech has occurred, many of the cases involve speech made by attorneys in court proceedings. The existing scholarly literature generally supports the denial of First Amendment protection in such cases, indicating that attorney speech when made in court proceedings is …

Licensing Facially Religious Government Speech: Summum's Impact On The Free Speech And Establishment Clauses, Scott W. Gaylord

Scott W. Gaylord

LICENSING FACIALLY RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT SPEECH: SUMMUM’S IMPACT ON THE FREE SPEECH AND ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSES

Abstract

Scott W. Gaylord

It is the rare case that is decided solely on Free Speech grounds yet directly impacts the Supreme Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum is such a case. Although all nine Justices concurred in the judgment—that a privately donated monument in a public park is a form of “government speech” that is not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause—the case spawned five different opinions as the Justices attempted to explain the proper scope of the Court’s decision …

Pacifica Reconsidered: Implications For The Current Controversy Over Broadcast Indecency, Angela J. Campbell

Angela J. Campbell

This article tells the story of how and why a single letter complaining about “dirty words” in a comedy routine broadcast by a radio station ended up in the Supreme Court and how a closely divided Court found that it was constitutional for the Federal Communications Commission to admonish the station for the broadcast even though the speech was protected by the First Amendment and its distribution by other means could not be could not be prohibited. This case, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, was controversial when it was decided in 1978, and it has become more controversial because of the …