Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 13 of 13

Full-Text Articles in Law

To Drink The Cup Of Fury: Funeral Picketing, Public Discourse And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman Nov 2012

To Drink The Cup Of Fury: Funeral Picketing, Public Discourse And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court held that the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to picket the funeral of a young soldier killed in Iraq. This decision reinforces a position that has become increasingly prevalent in First Amendment jurisprudence – the view that the state may not regulate public discourse to protect individuals from emotional or dignitary injury. In this Article, I argue that this view is deeply problematic for two reasons: it unduly sacrifices the value of individual personality and it tends to undermine the sphere of public discourse itself by negating the practical and …


First Amendment Protection For Union Appeals To Consumers, Michael C. Harper Jul 2012

First Amendment Protection For Union Appeals To Consumers, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

This article explains why decisions of the National Labor Relations Board under President Obama holding non-picketing secondary appeals to consumers not to be illegal under the National Labor Relations Act were necessary under a 1988 decision of the Supreme Court, Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Construction Trades Council. The article also explains why both the Supreme Court decision and the Board’s recent decisions were compelled by the first amendment and could not be based on the language of § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B) of the National Labor Relations Act as interpreted by the Court in other cases. The …


New Technologies And Constitutional Law, Thomas Fetzer, Christopher S. Yoo Jun 2012

New Technologies And Constitutional Law, Thomas Fetzer, Christopher S. Yoo

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


Of Speech And Sanctions: Toward A Penalty-Sensitive Approach To The First Amendment, Michael Coenen Jun 2012

Of Speech And Sanctions: Toward A Penalty-Sensitive Approach To The First Amendment, Michael Coenen

Journal Articles

Courts confronting First Amendment claims do not often scrutinize the severity of a speaker’s punishment. Embracing a “penalty-neutral” understanding of the free-speech right, these courts tend to treat an individual’s expression as either protected, in which case the government may not punish it at all, or unprotected, in which case the government may punish it to a very great degree. There is, however, a small but important body of “penalty-sensitive” case law that runs counter to the penalty-neutral norm. Within this case law, the severity of a speaker’s punishment affects the merits of her First Amendment claim, thus giving rise …


Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla Jan 2012

Categories, Tiers Of Review, And The Roiling Sea Of Free Speech Doctrine And Principle: A Methodological Critique Of United States V. Alvarez, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

None available.


Talking Chalk: Defacing The First Amendment In The Public Forum, Marie Failinger Jan 2012

Talking Chalk: Defacing The First Amendment In The Public Forum, Marie Failinger

Faculty Scholarship

This article examines the surprising outcomes of cases challenging arrests of protesters for chalking sidewalks in public forums, and argues that courts have been careless in analyzing these blanket prohibitions under the time, place and manner doctrine.


The Sidis Case And The Origins Of Modern Privacy Law, Samantha Barbas Jan 2012

The Sidis Case And The Origins Of Modern Privacy Law, Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

The American press, it’s been said, is freer to invade personal privacy than perhaps any other in the world. The tort law of privacy, as a shield against unwanted media exposure of private life, is very weak. The usual reason given for the weakness of U.S. privacy law as a bar on the publication of private information is the strong tradition of First Amendment freedom. But “freedom of the press” alone cannot explain why liberty to publish has been interpreted as a right to print truly intimate matters or to thrust people into the spotlight against their will. Especially in …


Government May Not Speak Out-Of-Turn, Steven H. Goldberg Jan 2012

Government May Not Speak Out-Of-Turn, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association5 was about whether government could compel individual beef producers to pay for general beef advertising credited to "America's Beef Producers;" even if they disagreed with the message and wanted to spend their advertising money to distinguish their certified Angus or Hereford beef. That "compelled subsidy" case became the unlikely authority for a doctrine invented in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum6 that government could discriminate, based on viewpoint, on a subject for which it had no power to act. Each case has been criticized in its own right, but the attempt to make Johanns precedent …


Second Things First: What Free Speech Can And Can’T Say About Guns, Joseph Blocher Jan 2012

Second Things First: What Free Speech Can And Can’T Say About Guns, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

Professor Blocher responds to Gregory Magarian’s article on the implications of the First Amendment for the Second.


Aiming At The Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test For Personal Jurisdiction In Internet Defamation Cases, Sarah H. Ludington Jan 2012

Aiming At The Wrong Target: The "Audience Targeting" Test For Personal Jurisdiction In Internet Defamation Cases, Sarah H. Ludington

Faculty Scholarship

In Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 2002), the Fourth Circuit crafted a jurisdictional test for Internet defamation that requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant specifically targeted an audience in the forum state for the state to exercise jurisdiction. This test relies on the presumption that the Internet — which is accessible everywhere — is targeted nowhere; it strongly protects foreign libel defendants who have published on the Internet from being sued outside of their home states. Other courts, including the North Carolina Court of Appeals, have since adopted or applied the test. The …


Incendiary Speech And Social Media, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky Jan 2012

Incendiary Speech And Social Media, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Incidents illustrating the incendiary capacity of social media have rekindled concerns about the "mismatch" between existing doctrinal categories and new types of dangerous speech. This Essay examines two such incidents, one in which an offensive tweet and YouTube video led a hostile audience to riot and murder, and the other in which a blogger urged his nameless, faceless audience to murder federal judges. One incident resulted in liability for the speaker, even though no violence occurred; the other did not lead to liability for the speaker even though at least thirty people died as a result of his words. An …


Sorrell V. Ims Health And The End Of The Constitutional Double Standard, Ernest A. Young Jan 2012

Sorrell V. Ims Health And The End Of The Constitutional Double Standard, Ernest A. Young

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.


The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole Jan 2012

The First Amendment’S Borders: The Place Of Holder V. Humanitarian Law Project In First Amendment Doctrine, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court’s first decision pitting First Amendment rights against national security interests since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Court appears to have radically departed from some of the First Amendment’s most basic principles, including the maxims that speech may not be penalized because of its viewpoint, that even speech advocating crime deserves protection until it constitutes incitement, and that political association is constitutionally protected absent specific intent to further a group’s illegal ends. These principles lie at the core of our political and democratic freedoms, yet Humanitarian Law Project …