First Amendment Commons^™

Whistleblowing And Freedom Of Conscience: Towards A New Legal Analysis, Richard Haigh, Peter Bowal

Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy

Most of us have an instinctive understanding of what “whistleblowing” is: the act of alerting the public to scandal, danger, malpractice, corruption or other immoral or unethical behaviour. For a long time, whistleblowers were treated poorly – today, they are now acknowledged, and sometimes even admired, but there is still some way to go. We believe that a strongly developed and distinct freedom of conscience, as expressed in s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, could go some way towards achieving that goal. In law, however, conscience is often treated as inseparable from religion, without any meaningful …

United States V. Stevens: Win, Loss, Or Draw For Animals?, David N. Cassuto

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Robert J. Stevens, proprietor of “Dogs of Velvet and Steel,” was indicted for marketing dog-fighting videos in violation of 18 U.S.C. §48, a law criminalizing visual or auditory depictions of animals being “intentionally mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed” if such conduct violated federal or state law where “the creation, sale, or possession [of such materials]” takes place.” The law aimed principally at makers and distributors of “crush videos” wherein women wearing high heels and depicted from the waist down, grind small animals to death. However, the language of 18 U.S.C. §48 extended to dog-fighting as well. Stevens challenged the law …

Freedom Of Expression And Its Competitors, George C. Christie

Faculty Scholarship

The recognition of an increasing number of basic human rights, such as in the European Convention on Human Rights, has had the paradoxical effect of requiring courts in the common-law world to consider whether the extensive protection given by the common law to expression that was not false or misleading must be modified to accommodate these newly recognized basic rights. The most important of these newly recognized rights is the right of privacy, although expression has other competitors as well, such as what might be called a right to be spared the emotional trauma caused by abusive language. This article …

Selling Land And Religion, Eang Ngov

Faculty Articles

Thousands of religious monuments have been donated to cities and towns. Under Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, local, state, and federal governments now have greater freedom to accept religious monuments, symbols, and objects donated to them for permanent display in public spaces without violating the Free Speech Clause. Now that governments may embrace religious monuments and symbols as their own speech, the obvious question arises whether governments violate the Establishment Clause by permanently displaying a religiously significant object. Fearing an Establishment Clause violation, some governmental bodies have privatized religious objects and the land beneath them by selling or transferring the …

Does A Broad Free Exercise Right Require A Narrow Definition Of Religion, 39 Hastings Const. L.Q. 357 (2012), Donald L. Beschle

UIC Law Open Access Faculty Scholarship

In the 1990 case of Employment Division v. Smith, a sharply divided Supreme Court abandoned the routine application of strict scrutiny when considering Free Exercise Clause claims seeking exemption from generally applicable legal duties or prohibitions. The Court returned to an older view of the Free Exercise Clause as protecting believers only from government acts that were aimed specifically at beliefs, and that grew out of hostility to the religion rather than a desire to further legitimate secular goals.

Reaction to Smith was largely negative, and legislative and state court responses followed, seeking to restore strict scrutiny as the appropriate …

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 …

Privacy And The Right Of Free Expression, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Nobody likes to be talked about but everybody likes to talk. Trying to stop the dissemination of private information is, however, an impingement on free expression and the freedom to observe. A freestanding “right of privacy” that violates these interests is constitutionally permissible only if it can be justified using one of the standard bases for allowing restrictions on First Amendment rights. The three most likely possibilities are that the law in question: (1) can pass strict scrutiny, (2) fall within a recognized “categorical” exception, or (3) places only an “incidental” burden on First Amendment interests. Of these three, only …

Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert

Oklahoma Law Review

This article analyzes the United States Supreme Court’s March 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps. Specifically, it demonstrates the narrow nature of the holding, and argues that while narrow framing, in the tradition of judicial minimalism, may have been a strategic move by Chief Justice John Roberts to obtain a decisive eight-justice majority, the resulting opinion failed to advance First Amendment jurisprudence significantly. Instead, the outcome simply—even predictably—fell in line with an established order of decisions. This article examines four tactics employed by the Chief Justice to narrow the case in such a way that its outcome was essentially …

Not A Free Press Court?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

The last decade has been tumultuous for print and broadcast media. Daily newspaper circulation continues to fall precipitously, magazines struggle to survive, and network television audiences keep shrinking. In the meanwhile, cable news is prospering, mobile devices are contributing to increased news consumption, and many new media outlets appear to be thriving. Despite the dynamism in the media industry, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has taken up relatively few First Amendment cases directly involving the media. The Court has addressed a number of important free speech cases since 2005, but thus far the only Roberts Court decisions …

The Reach Of The Schoolhouse Gate: The Fate Of Tinker In The Age Of Digital Social Media, Mickey Lee Jett

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Speech Act Defends The First Amendment: A Visible And Targeted Response To Libel Tourism, Marissa Gerny

Student Works

No abstract provided.

John Hart Ely: An Influential Constitutional Scholar—Protecting "Flag Desecration" Under The First Amendment, Mohammed Saif-Alden Wattad

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religion, School, And Judicial Decision Making: An Empirical Perspective, Michael Heise, Gregory C. Sisk

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We analyze various influences on judicial outcomes favoring religion in cases involving elementary and secondary schools and decided by lower federal courts. A focus on religion in the school context is warranted as the most difficult and penetrating questions about the proper relationship between Church and State have arisen with special frequency, controversy, and fervor in the often-charged atmosphere of education. Schools and the Religion Clauses collide persistently, and litigation frames many of these collisions. Also, the frequency and magnitude of these legal collisions increase as various policy initiatives increasingly seek to leverage private and religious schools in the service …

Foia The First Amendment: Representative Democracy And The People’S Exclusive “Right To Know”, Barry Sullivan

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Citizens, United And Citizens United: The Future Of Labor Speech Rights?, Charlotte Garden

Faculty Articles

Within hours of its announcement, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC came under attack from progressive groups. Among these groups were some of America's largest labor unions-even though the decision applies equally to unions and for-profit corporations. The reason is clear: there exist both practical and structural impediments that will prevent unions from benefitting from Citizens United to the same extent as corporations. Therefore, Citizens United stands to unleash a torrent of corporate electioneering that could drown out the countervailing voice of organized labor.

This article, however, takes a broader view of Citizens United to explore a …

Secrets, Lies, And Disclosure, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay suggests that we can sometimes understand those who resist campaign disclosure or disclaimer requirements as interested in keeping a secret and occasionally even in telling a sort of lie about the source or intensity of support for a particular candidate or cause. Such secrets and lies threaten listeners’ autonomy interests when the speaker seeks to keep such secrets (and sometimes seeks to tell such lies) to enhance her ability to influence her listeners’ decisions. For these reasons, I suggest greater attention to the reasons speakers seek to keep secrets (or occasionally tell such lies) in assessing the …

Standing On Holy Ground: How Rethinking Justiciability Might Bring Peace To The Establishment Clause, John M. Bickers

Cleveland State Law Review

The Establishment Clause is home to both procedural and substantive disorder. Particularly when evaluating religious speech by the government, the Supreme Court has applied a number of distinct tests, with varying degrees of strictness. There has never been an overarching principle for determining which test would appear at which time; commentators, and occasionally the Justices themselves, have suspected that desired results drove the choice of tests. At the same time, the Court has articulated a series of requirements necessary for a plaintiff to have standing to challenge government action, only to ignore them in government religious speech cases. The resulting …

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock V. Hermitage School District, Matthew Beatus

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Crosses And Culture: State-Sponsored Religious Displays In The Us And Europe, Mark L. Movsesian

Faculty Publications

This article compares the recent jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights on the question of state-sponsored religious displays. Both tribunals insist that states have a duty of religious “neutrality,” but each defines that term differently. For the Supreme Court, neutrality means that government may not proselytize, even indirectly, or appear to favor a particular church; neutrality may even mean that government must not endorse religion generally. For the ECtHR, by contrast, neutrality means only that government must avoid active religious indoctrination; the ECtHR allows government to give “preponderant visibility” to the symbols of …

Today’S Paradigm Of Bullying: Cyberbullying And The First Amendment, Fay L. Kogan

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Technological Leap, Statutory Gap, And Constitutional Abyss: Remote Biometric Identification Comes Of Age, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Federal interest in using facial recognition technology (“FRT”) to collect, analyze, and use biometric information is rapidly growing. Despite the swift movement of agencies and contractors into this realm, however, Congress has been virtually silent on the current and potential uses of FRT. No laws directly address facial recognition—much less the pairing of facial recognition with video surveillance—in criminal law. Limits placed on the collection of personally identifiable information, moreover, do not apply. The absence of a statutory framework is a cause for concern. FRT represents the first of a series of next generation biometrics, such as hand geometry, iris, …

The Limits Of Government Regulation Of Science, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The recent controversy over the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity’s (NSABB) request that Science and Nature redact key parts of two papers on transmissible avian (H5N1) influenza reveal a troubled relationship between science and security. While NSABB’s request does not violate the First Amendment, efforts to censor the scientific press by force of law would usually be an unconstitutional prior restraint of the press absent a compelling state interest. The constitutional validity of conditions on grant funding to require pre-publication review of unclassified research is unclear but also arguably unconstitutional.

The clearest case where government may restrict publication is …

Incitement To Riot In The Age Of Flash Mobs, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

As people increasingly use social media to organize both protests and robberies, government will try to regulate these calls to action. With an eye to this intensifying dynamic, this Article reviews First Amendment jurisprudence on incitement and applies it to existing statutes on incitement to riot at a common law, state, and federal level. The article suggests that First Amendment jurisprudence has a particularly tortuous relationship with regulating speech directed to crowds. It examines current crowd psychology to suggest which crowd behavior, if any, should as a matter of policy be subject to regulation. It concludes that many existing incitement-to-riot …

Lies And The Constitution, Helen Norton

Publications

Although the Supreme Court declared almost forty years ago that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” the Court in United States v Alvarez ruled that the First Amendment protects at least some -- and perhaps many -- intentional lies from government prohibition. In Alvarez, a divided Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal statute that made it a crime for any person to state falsely that he or she had received a military decoration or medal. In three separate opinions, all of the Justices agreed that the First Amendment permits the government to …

Government Speech In Transition, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the legacy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n. There the Court offered its clearest articulation to date of its emerging government speech doctrine. After characterizing contested expression as the government’s, the Court then held such government speech to be exempt from free speech clause scrutiny. In so doing, the Court solved at least one substantial problem, but created others that remain unresolved today. On one hand, Johanns marked the Court’s long overdue recognition of the ubiquity and importance of government speech, appropriately exempting the government’s own expressive choices from free …

Falsely Shouting Fire In A Global Theater: Emerging Complexities Of Transborder Expression, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

We have entered an era in which potentially harmful expression can be distributed around the world in an instant. In the emerging global theater, speakers and audiences are connected through new and proliferating media; communicative space and time are compressed to an extraordinary degree; domestic expression can implicate national security and foreign affairs concerns; and a new model of global information dissemination is developing in which speakers are sometimes located beyond the jurisdiction of nations that may be harmed by their communications and disclosures.

This Article examines the First Amendment complexities associated with the dissemination of potentially harmful information in …

Recovering The Assembly Clause, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Territory, Wilderness, Property, And Reservation: Land And Religion In Native American Supreme Court Cases, Kathleen Sands

American Indian Law Review

In two trilogies of Supreme Court Decisions, both involving Native Americans, land is a key metaphor, figuring variously as property, territory, wilderness, and reservation. The first trilogy, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, comprises Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823), Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia (1832). The second trilogy concerns Native American claims for religious freedom under the First Amendment and includes Bowen v. Roy (1986), Lyng v. Northwest Cemetery Protective Association (1988), and Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990). The Marshal cases attempted to legitimate the transformation of land from wilderness to territory and property, and …

The Guardians Of Knowledge In The Modern State: Post’S Republic And The First Amendment, David M. Skover, Ronald K. L. Collins

Faculty Articles

Collins and Skover’s essay examines Yale Law School Dean Robert Post’s recent book, Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom: A First Amendment Jurisprudence for the Modern State (Yale, 2012). Collins and Skover describe and examine Dean Post’s dichotomy between the realm of “democratic legitimation,” where the First Amendment should offer its strongest protections, and the realm of “democratic competence,” where the First Amendment should yield to the findings of knowledgeable experts. Questioning the theoretical premises of Dean Post’s book, they argue that a “harm principle” may better explain much of the First Amendment doctrine that Post attempts to reconcile with his …

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 …