First Amendment Commons^™

In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner

Catholic University Law Review

In the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to …

Compelled Unionism In The Private Sector After Janus: Why Unions Should Not Profit From Dissenting Employees, Giovanna Bonafede

Catholic University Law Review

This Note examines the impact of the 2018 landmark labor law case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus held it unconstitutional under the First Amendment to require public sector employees to pay fees to a union to which they are not a member. The Supreme Court based their decision on the idea that compelling public employees to subsidize union speech to which they disagreed violated their free speech rights. The author argues that the Court’s holding in Janus should be extended to protect the free speech rights of private sector employees through a finding of state action in the private unionized …

Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.

The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005­–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.

Brooklyn Law Review

The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …

Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora

Brooklyn Law Review

In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …

The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere

Brooklyn Law Review

What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …

Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.

Revitalizing The Ban On Conversion Therapy: An Affirmation Of The Constitutionality Of Conversion Therapy Bans, Logan Kline

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Equality And First Amendment Challenges To Labor Law, Luke Taylor

University of Cincinnati Law Review

This Article conceptualizes a novel basis for defending laws that strengthen labor unions from First Amendment challenge: the argument that these laws are adequately tailored to advancing a compelling state interest in reducing economic inequality’s transmission into political inequality. The Article makes two principal contributions. First, it updates criticisms of the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decisions’ rejection of any compelling interest sounding in political equality. The Article does so by bringing recent constitutional scholarship to bear on that criticism and by explaining how recent improvements in social scientists’ ability to track different economic brackets’ political influence call for the Court …

The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Confronted every day with drastically increasing accounts of hate crimes and hate speech, nations’ legislators have routinely tried and subsequently failed to implement effective legislation capable of curbing the hatred epidemic currently sweeping the globe. This failure is due in large part to the lack of a universal stance on hate crime regulation and criminalization. Two countries in particular, the United States and Germany, embody two diametrically opposing approaches taken by nations in the present-day war on hate speech. This Note explores the dramatic dichotomy between the legislative framework surrounding the regulation of hate speech in these two countries. This …

Manipulation And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article examines new conceptual tools for understanding manipulation and its harms. More specifically, Part I draws from ethicists' insights to explain how manipulation can inflict harms distinct from those imposed by coercion and deception, and to explain why addressing these distinct harms is a government interest sufficiently strong to justify appropriately tailored interventions.

Part II explores how these conceptual tools also help us understand when, how, and why government can regulate manipulation consistent with the First Amendment. As a threshold matter, note that manipulative online interfaces and related design choices may be better understood as conduct, rather than speech …

Speech Regulation By Algorithm, Enrique Armijo

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The rapid convergence of speech and technology on social media platforms means it is likely the case that, either now or soon, more expressive activity will be regulated by Artificial Intelligence (AI) than by any legislature, regulator, or other government entity. Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly told Congress and other audiences that AI is the key to resolving Facebook's content moderation challenges, envisioning a moderation regime where algorithms detect and take down speech infringing Facebook's Community Standards ex ante, that is, prior to its public posting and before it reaches other users. According to Zuckerberg, this would eventually replace its initial …

Ridden With Controversy: Applying The Public Forum Doctrine To Public Transit Advertising, Remy T. B. Oliver

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note tackles the application of the First Amendment to public transit advertising. Under the current judicial framework, the First Amendment is filtered through the "public forum doctrine" when discussing the rights of citizens to utilize government property for expressive purposes. The Note will argue that public transit advertising constitutes a "designated public forum" in most (if not all) cases. That characterization would force any content-based restrictions to be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The natural result is a significant expansion of access to public transit advertising by interested parties. If the U.S. Supreme Court were to …

You Are Not A Commodity: A More Efficient Approach To Commercial Privacy Rights, Benjamin T. Pardue

Washington Law Review

United States common law provides four torts for privacy invasion: (1) disclosure of private facts, (2) intrusion upon seclusion, (3) placement of a person in a false light, and (4) appropriation of name or likeness. Appropriation of name or likeness occurs when a defendant commandeers the plaintiff’s recognizability, typically for a commercial benefit. Most states allow plaintiffs who establish liability to recover defendants’ profits as damages from the misappropriation under an “unjust enrichment” theory. By contrast, this Comment argues that such an award provides a windfall to plaintiffs and contributes to suboptimal social outcomes. These include overcompensating plaintiffs and incentivizing …

The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev

Journal of Law and Policy

In this Article we reveal a dual dilemma, both material and institutional, that the Supreme Court in its current composition faces when reviewing liberal state court decisions based on the state constitution. The Article further describes substantive and procedural tactics that the Court adopts to address this dilemma, and illustrates the arguments by analyzing a number of recent Supreme Court decisions. The two dilemmas, the combination of which serve as a “power multiplier,” of sorts, have arisen following the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a solid majority of conservative Justices nominated by Republican presidents. One …

Plausible Retaliation: Using Modern Pleading Standards As A Blueprint For First Amendment Retaliation Claims, Amy L. Moore

Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article examines the Supreme Court’s evolving doctrine governing First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, focusing on the Court’s decision in Nieves v. Bartlett and its imposition of a lack-of-probable-cause requirement as a threshold element. Tracing the doctrinal development from Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle through Hartman v. Moore, Reichle v. Howards, Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, and Nieves, the Article argues that the Court improperly imported retaliatory prosecution logic into the arrest context without adequately accounting for modern pleading standards under Twombly and Iqbal. The Article contends that requiring …

The Thirteenth Amendment And One Hundred And Fifty Years Of Struggle To Criminalize Slavery: A First Amendment Challenge To The Forced Labor Act (18 U.S.C. § 1589), Niles Stefan Illich

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

The Second Amendment Has Become A Threat To The First, Diana Palmer, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Absolute Publishing Power And Bulletproof Immunity: How Section 230 Shields Internet Service Providers From Liability And Makes It Impossible To Protect Your Reputation Online, Victoria Anderson

Seattle University Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Breathing Room For The Right Of Assembly, Tabatha Abu El-Haj

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article explores the legal and political fault lines that the wave of protests highlighting police violence and systemic racism in the summer of 2020 reveal. It focuses in depth on Detroit, Michigan, as a window into the ways that the First Amendment, as currently construed, under-protects those seeking political change and racial reckoning by demonstrating in the streets.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

Equal Justice Under Law: Navigating The Delicate Balance Between Religious Liberty And Marriage Equality, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses the current state of the law and offers thoughts on its future. Part Il provides a brief overview of the legal landscape involved in the clash between religious liberty and same-sex marriage From Justice Scalia's seminal religious liberty test to the evolution of same- sex marriage, Part Il describes the current law. Part III introduces the reader to public accommodations laws. After providing this brief history, Part Ill discusses three Supreme Court cases that could have resolved the religious liberty versus marriage equality question. Part IV looks ahead and draws analogies to the 1960s religious liberty objections …

Deceive, Profit, Repeat: Public Deception Schemes To Conceal Product Dangers, Wes Henricksen

Cardozo Law Review

Companies in numerous industries have misled the public by hiding the dangers posed by their products. Sugar manufacturers hid the dangers of high fructose corn syrup and misdirected the public’s attention to fat, causing an epidemic of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Opioid manufacturers hid the dangers and addictiveness of opioid painkillers, leading to the opioid crisis. Fossil fuel companies misled the public about the causes, certainty, and effects of global warming, resulting in massive unregulated CO2 emissions and causing one of the greatest threats to humankind. This Article identifies all such schemes as belonging to a category of wrongs …

Does The Ministerial Exception Protect A Minister's Humiliating Comments?, Yiting Feng

SLU Law Journal Online

The Seventh Circuit case of Demkovich v. St. Andrew the Apostle Parish applied the ministerial exception to bar a fired minister’s claim of a hostile work environment. In this article, Yiting Feng lists the reason why she disagrees with the majority opinion and leans towards the dissenting opinion.

Scrutiny-Determination Avoidance In First Amendment Cases: Laudable Minimalism Or Condemnable Evasion?, Clay Calvert

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

When Two Rights Make A Wrong: Armed Assembly Under The First And Second Amendments, Michael C. Dorf

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

'Divisive Concepts' Law And The Big Chill, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Much Critical commentary concerning the so-called "divisive concepts" provisions in this year's budget legislation has focused on their restrictions on speech. These restrictions, among other things, forbid public K-12 teachers from instructing that some persons are "inherently superior or inferior to [others]", "inherently racist or sexist," "should be discriminated against," or "should not attempt to treat others equally" because of their "age, sex gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin."