First Amendment Commons^™

Justice Brennan, Due Process And The Freedom Of Speech: A Celebration Of Speiser V. Randall, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev. 7 (1986), George Anastaplo

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Washington's Ballot Restriction For Minor Party Candidates: When Is A Primary Not A Primary?, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Property And Personal Privacy: Interrelationship, Abandonment And Confusion In The Path Of Judicial Review, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 847 (1985), Kenneth Mott, Lovette Mott

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Constitution And Informational Privacy, Or How So-Called Conservatives Countenance Governmental Intrustion Into A Person's Private Affairs, 18 J. Marshall L. Rev. 871 (1985), Michael P. Seng

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

1983-84 Current Developments In Civil Liberties, Ivan E. Bodensteiner, Rosalie Levinson

Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And Distributional Voting Rights Controversies, Emily M. Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Rules And Standards, Pierre Schlag

Publications

No abstract provided.

Backing Off Bivens And The Ramifications Of This Retreat For The Vindication Of First Amendment Rights, Joan Steinman

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this Article, Chappell and Bush are analyzed against the backdrop of the preceding Bivens cases. The analysis explains how these cases presented situations that were similar to one another but unlike any the Supreme Court previously had faced in Bivens cases. It demonstrates how the Court departed from the line of analysis that its previous Bivens cases had established, in a way that makes it more difficult for at least some plaintiffs seeking vindication of their constitutional rights to succeed in having a money damage remedy implied directly under the Constitution. The Article then argues that …

On Complaining About The Burger Court, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

How Useful Is Judicial Review In Free Speech Cases?, Robert F. Nagel

Publications

No abstract provided.

A New Look At An Old Association: Will Today's Women Be Tomorrow's Jaycees?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

What Standards Apply When Freedoms Collide?, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Doctrine Of Prior Restraint Since The Pentagon Papers, James L. Oakes

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this speech is to examine how the doctrine against prior restraint has evolved since the Pentagon Papers case. I intend to demonstrate that while traditional antipathy to prior restraint has for the most part remained strong, several recent cases foreshadow a dangerous expansion of well-established exceptions to the doctrine. To understand fully the significance of these recent cases, I will begin this lecture with a general discussion of the historical origins of the doctrine against prior restraint. I will then proceed with a critical overview of the landmark Pentagon Papers case, more formally called New York Times …

Involuntary Commitment: The Move Toward Dangerousness, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 83 (1982), Robert Weissbourd

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Protection Of Commercial Speech, Jonathan Weinberg

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Codifying The First Amendment: New York V. Ferber, Frederick Schauer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Free Speech Or Economic Weapon? The Persisting Problem Of Picketing, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

"Peaceful picketing," the United States Supreme Court has said, "is the workingman's means of communication."' One line of analysis is that, as a means of communication, picketing is free speech and is therefore entitled to every constitutional protection afforded other forms of expression. This means that it cannot be subjected to special restrictions, such as antiboycott curbs, simply because it is picketing. The opposing line of analysis is that picketing is not simply speech; it is "speech plus." The "plus" element removes picketing from the realm of pure speech and enables it to be regulated in ways that the Constitution …

Transforming The Privately Owned Shopping Center Into A Public Forum: Pruneyard Shopping Center V. Robins, James M. Mccauley

University of Richmond Law Review

A recent Supreme Court decision has affirmed a state's choice to provide its citizens access to privately owned shopping centers for the purpose of exercising free speech and petition rights. The United States Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins held that state consitutional provisions permitting individuals to exercise free speech and petition rights on private shopping center property do not violate the shopping center owner's property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments or his free speech rights under the first and fourteenth amendments. There exists a delicate balance between the competing in- terests of the shopping center …

The Attempt To Develop An Appropriate Standard Of Liability For The Defamation Of Public And Private People: The Supreme Court And The Federalization Of Libel Law, Howard A. Gutman

North Carolina Central Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Not-So-Privileged Press, John D. Epps

University of Richmond Law Review

The first amendment mandates freedom of the press, but the extent of that freedom has been the issue in scores of Supreme Court opinions. Whether press freedom is above and beyond that provided the general public by the first amendment has been a fertile question for debate. The question is more than academic, however; its answer has determined, for example, that reporters must be jailed for refusing to comply with subpoenas and that newsrooms can be searched for evidence of criminal activities.

Private Speech And The Private Forum: Givhan V. Western Line School District, Frederick Schauer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Speech And Speech - Obscenity And Obscenity: An Exercise In The Interpretation Of Constitutional Language, Frederick Schauer

Faculty Publications

Commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's use of the "two-level" theory of speech to place obscenity beyond the pale of the first amendment. They charge the Court with shirking the task of balancing first amendment values and the states' interests in regulating obscene material. Professor Schauer meets this criticism by examining the meaning of the word "speech" in the context of the purposes of the first amendment and the Constitution as a whole. He concludes that "speech"does not include a category.of obscenity'that performs the function of a surrogate sexual act and is lacking in communicative content. The Court's treatment of …

The Nonpartisan Freedom Of Expression Of Public Employees, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Governmental activities affect each of us in a myriad of ways. The government's role as employer may pale in comparison with the more glamorous activities of the government as national defender, law enforcer, and allocator of scarce resources. Yet the legal ramifications of public employment-where the public interest in efficient governmental operation often conflicts with the public employee's freedom-have a profound influence upon American society.

In 1968, the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education formulated a test designed to balance these interests in defining the scope of a public employee's freedom of expression. In examining the nonpartisan free …

The Supreme Court And The Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners: A Reappraisal, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of The Press And Public Access: Toward A Theory Of Partial Regulation Of The Mass Media, Lee C. Bollinger Jr.

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine critically these decisions and to explore whether there is any rational basis for limiting to one sector of the media the legislature's power to impose access regulation. The article takes the position that the Court has pursued the right path for the wrong reasons. There is a powerful rationality underlying the current decision to restrict regulatory authority to broadcasting, but it is not, as is commonly supposed, that broadcasting is somehow different in principle from the print media and that it therefore is not deserving of equivalent first amendment treatment. As will …

Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel

Book Chapters

In Elfbrandt v. Russell, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared unconstitutional Arizona's requirement of a loyalty oath from state employees. At first glance, Elfbrandt appears to be just another decision voiding a state loyalty oath on limited grounds relating to the specific language of the particular oath. Yet, several aspects of Mr. Justice Douglas' opinion for the majority suggests that Elfbrandt is really of far greater significance: it may sharply limit the scope and coverage of loyalty oaths generally and, indeed, may presage a ruling invalidating all such oaths. Of course, only the Supreme Court can determine this. …

Reaffirming The Freedom Of The Press: Another Look At Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This note does not take issue with the result of the decision. Rather, the argument herein is that the access theory deserves more complete consideration. The Court used first amendment precedents to strike down the reply statute without exploring whether the rationale behind these precedents mandated such a result. In an effort to justify more fully the Court's conclusion, this note will first present the underlying rationale of the pro-access argument. It will then analyze the constitutionality of statutes that would implement a right of access. Finally, the note will discuss several practical difficulties that access legislation would present.

A Critique Of The Recent Supreme Court Obscenity Decisions, Herald Price Fahringer, Michael J. Brown

Kentucky Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Spence V. Washington, Lewis F. Powell Jr.

Supreme Court Case Files

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court, Compulsory Education, And The First Amendment's Religion Clauses, Philip B. Kurland

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.