First Amendment Commons^™

Implications Of Libel Doctrine For Nondefamatory Falsehoods Under The First Amendment, Nat Stern

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.

Privacy Through Anonymity: An Economic Argument For Expanding The Right Of Privacy In Public Places, Joseph Siprut

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

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 …

Rescuing The Dignitary Torts From The Constitution, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Faculty Publications

The rights of individuals to recover for dignitary torts has been withering for the past forty years, since the Supreme Court constitutionalized the state common law tort of defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. The Court announced in that case that the First Amendment required it to impose high standards for individual defamation claims in order to protect robust speech. As that principle has taken hold, it has in effect squeezed the rights of individuals to recover for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as defamation. Just last Term, the Court held …

Defamation In Good Faith: An Argument For Restating The Defense Of Qualified Privilege, A.G. Harmon

Barry Law Review

Since the 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the standard for proving defamation has often proven insurmountable to public figure plaintiffs who claim their reputations have been hurt through libel or slander. But, the standard can prove equally insurmountable to “private figure” plaintiffs when a qualified, or “conditional,” privilege applies. Such privileges, intended to further the social policy of candor on certain proscribed occasions, can be claimed regarding otherwise questionable conversations as long as the dialogue is made: 1) in good faith; 2) about a subject in which the speaker has an interest or duty; 3) within …

The Curious Life Of In Loco Parentis At American Universities, Philip Lee

Faculty Publications

In this article I trace the legal history, through court opinions, of in loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of the parent”) as applied to the relationship between American universities and their students. I demonstrate that until the 1960s, the in loco parentis doctrine allowed universities to exercise great discretion in developing the “character” of their students without respect to their students’ constitutional rights. The demise of this doctrine forced courts, and universities themselves, to redefine the relationship of universities with their students in important ways.

The Limits Of Tort Privacy, Neil M. Richards

Scholarship@WashULaw

The conception of tort privacy developed by Warren, Brandeis and Prosser sits at the heart of American understandings of privacy law. Rooted in protection of private information against unwanted collection, use, and disclosure, tort privacy protects against emotional injury, and was directed by design against disclosures of true, embarrassing facts by the media. In this essay, I argue that as conceived by Warren and Brandeis and interpreted by Prosser, tort privacy is a poor vehicle for grappling with problems of privacy and reputation in the digital age. Tort privacy, especially the disclosure tort, has from its inception been in conflict …

The First Amendment Degraded: Milkovich V. Lorain And A Continuing Sense Of Loss On Its 20th Birthday, Richard H. Weisberg

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Milkovich v. Alabama, arguing that it undermines First Amendment protections by narrowing the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation cases. The Court's ruling, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that statements implying false facts are actionable, even if framed as opinions. This decision, the article contends, reverses the constitutional logic of earlier precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which trusted audiences to discern fact from opinion. The article warns that Milkovich erodes the First Amendment's faith in audience discernment, fostering a paternalistic judicial approach that stifles public debate.

The Story Of Us: Resolving The Face-Off Between Autobiographical Speech And Information Privacy, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Increasingly more “ordinary” Americans are choosing to share their life experiences with a public audience. In doing so, however, they are revealing more than their own personal stories, they are exposing private information about others as well. The face-off between autobiographical speech and information privacy is coming to a head, and our legal system is not prepared to handle it.

In a prior article, I established that autobiographical speech is a unique and important category of speech that is at risk of being undervalued under current law. This article builds on my earlier work by addressing the emerging conflict between …

The Communications Decency Act And New York Times V. Sullivan: Providing Public Figure Defamation A Home On The Internet, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 491 (2010), Chris Williams

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

The Puzzle Of Brandeis, Privacy, And Speech, Neil M. Richards

Scholarship@WashULaw

Most courts and scholarship assume that privacy and free speech are always in conflict, even though each of these traditions can be traced back to writings by Louis D. Brandeis – his 1890 Harvard Law Review article “The Right to Privacy” and his 1927 concurrence in Whitney v. California. How can modern notions of privacy and speech be so fundamentally opposed if Brandeis played a major role in crafting both? And how, if at all, did Brandeis recognize or address these tensions? These questions have been neglected by scholars of First Amendment law, privacy, and Brandeis. In this paper, I …

Restraining False Light: Constitutional And Common Law Limits On A "Troublesome Tort", James B. Lake

Federal Communications Law Journal

The defamation tort is the common law's established remedy for false speech that causes reputational and emotional injury. That tort is subject to intricate constitutional, legislative, and common law rules that have evolved over decades. The false light invasion of privacy tort also provides a potential cause of action in response to injurious falsehood. False light, however, has been subject to much less judicial and legislative scrutiny than defamation. As a result, courts often are uncertain about the proper limits on false light and, in some cases, have countenanced false light claims that would have failed if filed as defamation …

In The Matter Of Ottinger V. Non-Party The Journal News, Daniel Haier

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Hot Pursuit: The Media's Liability For Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress Through Newsgathering, Heather Berger

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Freedom Of 3d Thought: The First Amendment In Virtual Reality, Marc Jonathan Blitz

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Regulation Of Blog Campaign Advocacy On The Internet: Comparing U.S., German, And Eu Approaches, Allison R. Hayward

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

This essay examines how U.S., German, and EU laws have treated the regulation of political commentary on the Internet. As political blogging grows in popularity, the reach of these web sites, and their influence in political campaigns, may make them a target for regulation by rivals and incumbents, both at home and abroad. Since ordinarily any URL can be reached from anywhere with Internet access, conflicting domestic rules about what can be said (and who can say it) present potential for conflicting rules on blogging.

In brief, U.S. law protects blogging content, but may impose restrictions on the source of …

The First Amendment, Journalists, And Sources: A Curious Study In "Reverse Federalism", Rodney A. Smolla

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Libel Law Analysis Of Media Abuses In Reporting On The Duke Lacrosse Fabricated Rape Charges, David A. Elder

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The broad outlines of the monumental injustices involved in the Duke lacrosse rape-that-never-happened case are well known. An unethical local prosecutor, Michael B. Nifong, for partisan political reasons, pursued the Duke lacrosse team and ultimately indicted three of its members based almost solely on the accusations of a wholly unreliable, self-proclaimed victim. Nifong received generous support and sustenance from many left-leaning, politically active Duke faculty, an extraordinarily inept (or worse) Duke administration, and almost the entirety of the mainstream media. Ultimately, following a detailed analysis by his office, North Carolina Attorney General Roy A. Cooper publicly excoriated Nifong in concluding …

Limiting A Constitutional Tort Without Probably Cause: First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest After Hartman, Colin P. Watson

Michigan Law Review

Federal law provides a cause of action for individuals who are the target of adverse state action taken in retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. Because these constitutional torts are "easy to allege and hard to disprove," they raise difficult questions concerning the proper balance between allowing meaningful access to the courts and protecting government agents from frivolous and vexatious litigation. In its recent decision in Hartman v. Moore, the U.S. Supreme Court tipped the scales in favor of the state in one subset of First Amendment retaliation actions by holding that plaintiffs in actions for retaliatory …

Slapping Around The First Amendment: An Analysis Of Oklahoma’S Anti-Slapp Statute And Its Implications On The Right To Petition, Laura Long

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Revisiting The American Action For Public Disclosure Of Facts, In New Dimensions In Privacy Law: International And Comparative Perspectives (Andrew T. Kenyon & Megan Richardson Eds., 2006), Brian C. Murchison

Books and Chapters

Although the public disclosure tort has had an unpromising past, it appeals to what Anthony Lewis suggests is a sense of basic fairness to ‘those who have not sought power’ but have become illustrations of public issues. The tort’s weakness may be a function of cultural indifference or constitutional qualms, although the most likely explanation is institutional: until recently, the Supreme Court offered no illumination of a core interest. Libel law had reserved the obvious candidate, dignity, for civic contexts. Now, with the court’s decision in Bartnicki and the insights of a number of contemporary thinkers, it may be time …

Relative Access To Corrective Speech: A New Test For Requiring Actual Malice, Aaron Perzanowski

Articles

This Article reexamines the First Amendment protections provided by the public figure doctrine. It suggests that the doctrine is rooted in a set of out-dated assumptions regarding the media landscape and, as a result, has failed to adapt in a manner that accounts for our changing communications environment.

The public figure doctrine, which imposes the more rigorous actual malice standard of fault on defamation plaintiffs who enjoy greater access to mass media, was constructed in an era defined by one-to-many communications media. Newspapers, broadcasters, and traditional publishers exhausted the Court's understanding of the means of communicating with mass audiences. As …

Small Hope Floats: How The Lower Courts Have Sunk The Right Of Privacy, Stephanie D. Taylor

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Terrorist Speech And The Future Of Free Expression, Laura K. Donohue

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law And Liberty In Virtual Worlds, Jack M. Balkin

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Scienter, Causation, And Harm In Freedom Of Expression Analysis: The Right Hand Side Of The Constitutional Calculus, Wilson Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Musical Copyright Law: Past, Present And Future Of Online Music Distribution, Robert J. Delchin

Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Academics And Bioterrorists: New Thinking About The New Terror, Richard Danzig

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.