First Amendment Commons^™

Juridical Discourse For Platforms, Thomas E. Kadri

Articles

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has created a private "Supreme Court," or so he says. Since 2021, his company's Oversight Board has issued verdicts on a smattering of Facebook's decisions about online speech. Cynics frame the Board as a Potemkin village, but defenders invoke analogies to separation of powers to claim that this new body empowers the public and restrains the company. Some are even calling for a single "platform supreme court" to rule over the entire industry.

Juridical discourse for platforms is powerful, but it can also be deceptive. This Response explores how juridical discourse has legitimized and empowered Facebook's …

Rethinking Absolute Immunity From Defamation Suits In Private Quasi-Judicial Proceedings

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

No abstract provided.

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mypillow Lands Hard In Judge Wright’S Court, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Lindell, Smartmatic sued Michael Lindell and MyPillow, Inc. in Minnesota federal district court, alleging defamation and violation of Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on Lindell’s claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election, including that Smartmatic voting machines were rigged. This post focuses on Smartmatic’s defamation claim against Lindell and MyPillow.

Restating The "F" Word: The Cursing Cheerleader, The First Amendment, And Proximate Cause, Don Corbett

University of San Francisco Law Review

No abstract provided.

Platforms As Blackacres, Thomas E. Kadri

Scholarly Works

While writing this Article, I interviewed a journalist who writes stories about harmful technologies. To do this work, he gathers information from websites to reveal trends that online platforms would prefer to hide. His team has exposed how Facebook threatens people’s privacy and safety, how Amazon hides cheaper deals from consumers, and how Google diverts political speech from our inboxes. You’d think the journalist might want credit for telling these important stories, but he instead insisted on anonymity when we talked because his lawyer was worried he’d be confessing to breaking the law—to committing the crime and tort of cyber-trespass. …

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 …

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.

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 …

Defending A Religious Institution Using The Charitable Immunity And Ecclesiastical Doctrine Defenses To Tort Liability, Michael M. Harrison

Arkansas Law Notes

Defense attorneys in Arkansas are, not infrequently, called upon to defend religious institutions from tort suits brought against them for a variety of reasons. Such claims may arise out of a motor vehicle accident involving a church bus, a slip and fall accident on church premises, a claim of sexual molestation on the part of a church employee, or another type of claim. In defending claims against religious institutions, it is imperative that the defense of charitable immunity and, where applicable, the Ecclesiastical doctrine, be raised in the first responsive pleading to the Complaint, be that an Answer and/or a …

Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Deeply Fake, Deeply Disturbing, Deeply Constitutional: Why The First Amendment Likely Protects The Creation Of Pornographic Deepfakes, Bradley Waldstreicher

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, David F. Forte, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, And David A., Skeel, Supporting Petitioners, David Forte, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, David A. Skeel

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The case concerns the "church autonomy doctrine" based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that courts may not inquire into matters of church government or into disputes of faith and doctrine. Will McRaney was fired from a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention because of a conflict over policies relating to the expansion of the Baptist faith. He sued the Southern Baptist Convention in tort.

The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the church autonomy doctrine. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal as "premature," asserting that there were possible …

Privileging Opinion, Denigrating Discourse: How The Law Of Defamation Incentivizes News Talk-Show Hyperbole, Clay Calvert

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article examines how defamation law promotes a culture of hyperbole and exaggeration on television news talk shows at the expense of more meaningful dialogue and discourse. The Article uses the 2020 federal court rulings in McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC and Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow as analytical springboards to address this problem. In both cases, judges dismissed defamation claims stemming from comments made by well-known talk-show hosts—Fox News’s Tucker Carlson in McDougal and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in Herring Networks—on the ground that their remarks would not be understood by viewers as factual assertions. In concluding that Carlson’s …

Torts: Sacrificing Individual Recovery For Media Protection—Larson V. Gannett Co., 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020), Rachel Lantz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

An Estate Plan For Kanye West, Thomas E. Simmons

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

One inventory item in megastar Kanye West's vast portfolio of assets merits a unique sort of care and safeguarding his right ofpublicity. The right ofpublicity is a property interest which represents the commercial value of a celebrity's name, image, and likeness. In some states, including California, the right survives the celebrity's death and is freely alienable and devisable. A protective arrangement, such as a trust, is often pursued to impose postmortem use and transferability restrictions on property that has particular importance to the testator. This Article proposes a noncharitable purpose trust as a means by which Kanye West's right of …

Sounds Of Science: Copyright Infringement In Ai Music Generator Outputs, Eric Sunray

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The music business is no stranger to disruptive technology. The industry’s apparent comeback from the devastating downturn caused by illegal file sharing seems to have arrived just in time for what may be an even more disruptive technological phenomenon: artificial intelligence (“AI”). Much has been said about the implications of AI-generated music, ranging from issues of ownership, to rights of publicity. However, there has been surprisingly little discussion of infringement in the AI systems’ outputs. By examining the functionality of AI music generators through the lens of de minimis use case law, this paper will explain how the outputs of …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

Enough Is As Good As A Feast, Noah C. Chauvin

Seattle University Law Review

Ipse Dixit, the podcast on legal scholarship, provides a valuable service to the legal community and particularly to the legal academy. The podcast’s hosts skillfully interview guests about their legal and law-related scholarship, helping those guests communicate their ideas clearly and concisely. In this review essay, I argue that Ipse Dixit has made a major contribution to legal scholarship by demonstrating in its interview episodes that law review articles are neither the only nor the best way of communicating scholarly ideas. This contribution should be considered “scholarship,” because one of the primary goals of scholarship is to communicate new ideas.

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Anti-Slapp Coverage And The First Amendment: Hurdles To Defamation Suits In Political Campaigns, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

Defamation cases often arise out of intemperate or offensive statements made in political campaigns. These comments may refer to a candidate’s criminal history, familial conduct, or other matters. Whatever the subject, emotions undoubtedly run high during hotly contested campaigns. However, First Amendment protection is at its zenith when speakers engage in political speech, and speech about political candidates is inherently political speech. Thus, defamation suits arising out of political campaigns face significant hurdles, including (1) anti-SLAPP statutes and a greater public awareness of SLAPP suits; (2) a history and tradition of mudslinging and enhanced protection of political speech during political …

Privacy, Eavesdropping, And Wiretapping Across The United States: Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy And Judicial Discretion, Carol M. Bast

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

One-party consent and all-party consent eavesdropping and wiretapping statutes are two broad pathways for legislation to deal with the problem of secret taping and some states protect conversation under state constitutions. Whether a conversation is protected against being taped as a private conversation is often gauged by the reasonable expectation of privacy standard. Judges in both all-party consent and one-party consent jurisdictions have had to use their leeway under the reasonable expectation of privacy standard to arrive at what at the time seemed to be the most appropriate solution, perhaps in doing so creating a case law exception.

In Memory Of Professor James E. Bond, Janet Ainsworth

Seattle University Law Review

Janet Ainsworth, Professor of Law at Seattle University School of Law: In Memory of Professor James E. Bond.

Protecting Local News Outlets From Fatal Legal Expenses, Nicole J. Ligon

Faculty Scholarship

As lawsuits targeting the press continue to rise in response to today’s political climate, local news outlets are more likely to find themselves facing unexpected legal expenses. Although the national news media can generally weather the costs of libel lawsuits and subpoena requests, smaller news outlets have gone bankrupt or barely escaped such a fate while paying off legal fees, even when these outlets have ultimately been successful in their legal battles. Because local news outlets serve a critical role in underserved communities and are powerful agents of positive social change, they ought to be protected against fatal legal expenses. …

Raising The Stakes: The Battle Between The First Amendment And Athlete's Publicity Rights In The Wake Of Murphy V. Ncaa, Alexis Nicole Lilly

American University Business Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Official, Figures, And Controversies In Minnesota Defamation Law, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Minnesota, the plaintiff in a common law defamation claim is entitled to recover presumed damages in libel and slander per se cases. Those rules change when the First Amendment is injected into defamation cases when the plaintiff is a public official or figure or is a private person involved in a public controversy. A plaintiff who is a public official or figure must prove not only the elements of the common law defamation claim, but also that the defamatory communication was a false statement of fact and prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was made with actual …

Pre-Game Strategy For Long-Term Win: Using Trademark Registration And Right Of Publicity To Protect Esports Gamers, John Bat

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The soaring popularity of esports across the globe has turned ultra-talented gamers into a blend of athlete and entertainer. The youthful esports ecosystem is exploding in growth, and the world is taking notice. But are the gamers who are eyeing professional play taking basic legal steps to develop and shield their brands, as well as bolster their collective negotiating leverage with teams, leagues, and miscellaneous entities? This note explores what features of an up-and-coming esports gamer might be worth protecting through a trademark and/or personality-rights schema, which in turn, could assist competitive gamers who are interested in developing their careers …

Troll Storms And Tort Liability For Speech Urging Action By Others: A First Amendment Analysis And An Initial Step Toward A Federal Rule, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Commentary examines when, consistent with First Amendment principles of free expression, speakers can be held tortiously responsible for the actions of others with whom they have no contractual or employer-employee relationship. It argues that recent lawsuits against Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin for sparking “troll storms” provide a timely analytical springboard into the issue of vicarious tort liability. Furthermore, such liability is particularly problematic when a speaker’s message urging action does not fall into an unprotected category of expression, such as incitement or true threats, and thus, were it not for tort law, would be fully protected. In examining …