Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

First Amendment Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Brooklyn Law School

Discipline
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 31 - 60 of 129

Full-Text Articles in First Amendment

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

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, …

Go to article

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza Dec 2021

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 …

Go to article

Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone Dec 2021

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.

Go to article

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora Dec 2021

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 …

Go to article

The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere Dec 2021

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 …

Go to article

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 Dec 2021

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.

Go to article

The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch Dec 2021

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 …

Go to article

Copystrikes And Meme Bans: Social Media And Copyright Protections In The Digital Age, Angelina Sanchez Dec 2021

Copystrikes And Meme Bans: Social Media And Copyright Protections In The Digital Age, Angelina Sanchez

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Social media is a pervasive and ever-present aspect of many peoples’ lives. Its use permeates nearly every aspect of our existence – there truly is an app for everything. Most notably, social media operates internationally both in scope and usage allowing for the creation of an astounding global society that shares cultures and perspectives in a way unprecedented in human history. Never before have societies been as interconnected as they are now. Unfortunately, such interconnectedness comes with the issue of globalizing enforcement of copyright laws. Infringement runs rampant online and forces creators to struggle against a seemingly faceless foe in …

Go to article

The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev Dec 2021

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 …

Go to article

Section 230 And The Problem Of Social Cost, Stanley M. Besen, Philip L. Verveer Dec 2021

Section 230 And The Problem Of Social Cost, Stanley M. Besen, Philip L. Verveer

Journal of Law and Policy

This Article employs, with certain modifications, the framework developed in Ronald Coase’s classic article, “The Problem of Social Cost,” to analyze the current debate over Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This provision absolves interactive computer services, also known as platforms, from liability when they disseminate materials that cause “harm” to third parties, “harm” that can take the form of compensable damage of a sort found in ordinary tort cases but also can include broader injuries to social order and cohesion in the form of such things as hate speech and misinformation. The Article begins by pointing out that, …

Go to article

On The Outer Reaches Of The Marketplace Of Ideas: The Weaponization Of Title Vi Against Palestinian College Activists, Gavriella Fried Dec 2021

On The Outer Reaches Of The Marketplace Of Ideas: The Weaponization Of Title Vi Against Palestinian College Activists, Gavriella Fried

Journal of Law and Policy

On U.S. college campuses, Palestinian rights activists who are critical of Israel risk legal consequences. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program receiving federal funds. Over the past two decades, at least eighteen Title VI complaints have been filed against U.S. colleges and universities, alleging that Palestinian rights activists’ political expression is a form of anti-Semitism. In December 2019, President Trump promulgated Executive Order 13,899, which formally extended Title VI protections to Jews and directed enforcement agencies to investigate allegations of anti-Semitism using guidance that includes …

Go to article

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora Oct 2021

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Go to article

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza Oct 2021

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

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Mad About The First Amendment, Our Beacon For Liberty, Equality And Democracy, Nicholas Allard Oct 2021

Mad About The First Amendment, Our Beacon For Liberty, Equality And Democracy, Nicholas Allard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Go to article

“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias Jun 2021

“More Than Tangential”: When Does The Public Have A Right To Access Judicial Records?, Jordan Elias

Journal of Law and Policy

 Public accountability requires open proceedings and access to documents filed with the courts. The strong policy favoring access to judicial records creates a presumption against sealing documents without a compelling reason.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that this presumption of access arises when a proceeding relates “more than tangentially” to the merits. This is a low standard under which many types of motions qualify for the compelling reasons test.  With too much litigation occurring in secret, courts can use the “more than tangential” standard proactively to keep electronic case dockets available to citizens.

Go to article

Preserving Fabled Amateurism: The Benefits Of The Ncaa’S Adoption Of The Olympic Amateurism Model, John Kealey Dec 2020

Preserving Fabled Amateurism: The Benefits Of The Ncaa’S Adoption Of The Olympic Amateurism Model, John Kealey

Journal of Law and Policy

After a century of denying student-athletes from receiving compensation outside the cost of attendance for their athletic contributions to their respective universities, the NCAA finally announced it would change its amateurism rule. The change came in response to multiple class action lawsuits and, more recently, legislation from many states, namely California and New York, which would have mandated that universities do not interfere with student-athletes desire to commercially exploit their own names, image, and likenesses. However, these statutes are potentially flawed in that each could exacerbate or perpetuate the anti-trust and first amendment issues inherent to the current amateurism rule. …

Go to article

How Single-Candidate Super Pacs Changed The Game And How To Change It Back: Adopting A Presumption Of Coordination And Fixing The Fec’S Gridlock, Sarah E. Adams Jun 2020

How Single-Candidate Super Pacs Changed The Game And How To Change It Back: Adopting A Presumption Of Coordination And Fixing The Fec’S Gridlock, Sarah E. Adams

Brooklyn Law Review

A series of Supreme Court decisions chipping away at campaign finance regulations, particularly the regulation of expenditure-only groups, has resulted in a proliferation of single-candidate Super PACs. While purportedly independent of the candidate, in reality, single-candidate Super PACs operate as an extension of the candidate’s own campaign team. This note argues that single-candidate Super PACs, now operating as fundamental extensions of candidates’ campaigns, pose quid pro quo corruption risks by acting as surrogates for donors who have maxed out on contributions made directly to a candidate. This note will prove that curbing the proliferation of candidate Super PAC coordination, and …

Go to article

Symposium Introduction, William D. Araiza, Joel M. Gora Dec 2019

Symposium Introduction, William D. Araiza, Joel M. Gora

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 12, 2019, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the past, the present, and the future of free speech, and concerns about incitement that militate toward suppression. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these important matters—insight that is reflected in the 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.

Go to article

In Defense Of Brandenburg: The Aclu And Incitement Doctrine In 1919, 1969, And 2019, Emerson J. Sykes Dec 2019

In Defense Of Brandenburg: The Aclu And Incitement Doctrine In 1919, 1969, And 2019, Emerson J. Sykes

Brooklyn Law Review

In the United States, full-throated advocacy—even advocacy of violence—is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Few other countries define “incitement to violence” as narrowly, and governments tend to exploit any authority to regulate speech. The ACLU has played a central role in developing America’s speech-protective modern incitement doctrine over the last century, sometimes by representing clients with abhorrent views, including in the landmark Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg test sets a high bar for incitement that should be maintained, even with respect to online speech. Calls for increased regulation of speech should not be heeded.

Go to article

Brandenburg And Terrorism In The Digital Age, David S. Han Dec 2019

Brandenburg And Terrorism In The Digital Age, David S. Han

Brooklyn Law Review

This essay explores the tension between the longstanding Brandenburg standard and the current technological context—one in which abstract advocacy of terrorist conduct, widely and cheaply disseminated through the internet and channeled through social media, has contributed to a number of devastating attacks such as the Orlando nightclub shooting, the Boston marathon bombings, and the shootings in San Bernardino. It does so through the lens of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Carpenter v. United States—a Fourth Amendment case that similarly dealt with the collision between the longstanding constitutional righThis essay explores the tension between the longstanding Brandenburg standard and the …

Go to article

Assumptions About “Terrorism” And The Brandenburg Incitement Test, Christina E. Wells Dec 2019

Assumptions About “Terrorism” And The Brandenburg Incitement Test, Christina E. Wells

Brooklyn Law Review

The incitement standard announced in Brandenburg v. Ohio, which bars government officials from punishing advocacy of illegal activity unless it is directed and likely to imminently incite such activity, is one of the most speech-protective tests in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. However, terrorist advocacy – glorification of violence, spreading of propaganda, and recruitment of individuals to their cause – is putting pressure on the Brandenburg standard. Scholars have suggested working around Brandenburg’s incitement standard to counter the dangerous influence of terrorist advocacy, especially online advocacy. Although scholars’ concern with the harms of terrorism is understandable, their willingness to alter Brandenburg …

Go to article

"Incitement Lite" For The Nonpublic Forum, Leslie Gielow Jacobs Dec 2019

"Incitement Lite" For The Nonpublic Forum, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

Brooklyn Law Review

The incitement exception set out in Brandenburg v. Ohio defines the authority of the government, acting in its sovereign capacity, to impose criminal punishment on speakers because the content of their advocacy may persuade listeners to commit crimes. Nonpublic forum managers have much greater flexibility than the government-as-sovereign to restrict the private speakers they invite onto their property because the content of their speech may persuade listeners to engage in harmful conduct. In nonpublic forum management, speakers experience no sanctions and, unlike the government-as-sovereign, nonpublic forum managers may close their forums to all private speakers to avoid unwanted speech. This …

Go to article

Words We Fear: Burning Tweets & The Politics Of Incitement, Rachel E. Vanlandingham Dec 2019

Words We Fear: Burning Tweets & The Politics Of Incitement, Rachel E. Vanlandingham

Brooklyn Law Review

The United States government has long wrestled with the link between speech and violence, periodically employing speculative claims of potential violence and law-breaking to suppress political speech in times of national insecurity. By the late 1960s, however, the Supreme Court fully operationalized the First Amendment’s premise that most government speech suppression is antithetical to self-government, individual autonomy, equality, and liberty. The Court therefore, required immediacy of potential violence before the government could punish speech advocating such illegality, but left private actors free to censor and suppress speech. Today, social media companies, at the behest of the government, are doing what …

Go to article

The First Amendment And The Imminence Of Harm, Floyd Abrams Dec 2019

The First Amendment And The Imminence Of Harm, Floyd Abrams

Brooklyn Law Review

Noted First Amendment litigator Floyd Abrams engages questions about the past, the present and the future of free speech directly by considering the key words from Justice Holmes’s canonical formulation for the constitutional standard governing regulation of incitement speech—the requirement that any danger justifying such speech regulation must be “clear and present.” Mr. Abrams asks what types of “danger” are sufficiently “present” to provide that justification, using as examples the Communist teachings at issue in Dennis v. United States and The Progressive magazine’s publication of plans for constructing a hydrogen bomb. While Mr. Abrams reaches no hard and fast conclusion …

Go to article

#Losingthethread: Recognizing Assembly Rights In The New Public Forum, Liz Grefrath Dec 2019

#Losingthethread: Recognizing Assembly Rights In The New Public Forum, Liz Grefrath

Brooklyn Law Review

The specter of banishment from the vibrant public forum of social media to the empty streets and deserted sidewalks is a matter of increasing political, social, and cultural importance. Today, nearly every government official maintains a social media presence on Facebook or Twitter, generally to promote initiatives, share ideological positions, engage constituents, and tangle with critics. Privacy controls and content moderation tools, however, offer government officials tantalizing opportunities to discretely and effectively muffle disapproval, stifle dissent, and shield themselves from criticism on their public social media pages through “blocking” features. Courts are just starting to grapple with the First Amendment …

Go to article

The Long Road Back To Skokie: Returning The First Amendment To Mask Wearers, Rob Kahn Dec 2019

The Long Road Back To Skokie: Returning The First Amendment To Mask Wearers, Rob Kahn

Journal of Law and Policy

When the Seventh Circuit upheld the First Amendment right of Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1978, the protection of mask wearers was not far behind. Since then, doctrinal paths have diverged. While the Supreme Court continues to protect hate speech, mask wearing has been increasingly placed outside First Amendment protection. This article seeks to get to the bottom of this doctrinal divergence by addressing the symbolic purposes of mask bans—rooted in repudiating the Ku Klux Klan—as well as the doctrinal steps taken over the past forty years to restrict the First Amendment claims of mask wearers. It also …

Go to article

Grinding Down The Edges Of The Free Expression Right In Hong Kong, Stuart Hargreaves Jul 2019

Grinding Down The Edges Of The Free Expression Right In Hong Kong, Stuart Hargreaves

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

In the liberal-democratic tradition limits on speech must be clear, precise, and subject to justification within the particular constitutional framework of a given jurisdiction. In the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), the Court of Final Appeal has developed a line of jurisprudence that explains under which circumstances the Government of Hong Kong (Government) may seek to limit the free speech provisions contained within the Basic Law, Hong Kong's quasi-constitution. In its fight against ‘localists,’ however, rather than legislating a clear speech restriction that is consistent with this jurisprudence, the Government has instead attempted to suppress unwelcome political speech in …

Go to article

Lactose’S Intolerance: The Role Of Manufacturers’ Rights And Commercial Free Speech In Big Dairy’S Fight To Restrict Use Of The Term “Milk”, Kathleen Justis May 2019

Lactose’S Intolerance: The Role Of Manufacturers’ Rights And Commercial Free Speech In Big Dairy’S Fight To Restrict Use Of The Term “Milk”, Kathleen Justis

Brooklyn Law Review

This note examines the relationship between restrictions on commercial speech and manufacturers’ First Amendment right to describe their products to consumers, with a focus on the DAIRY PRIDE Act. It argues that broad, content-based restrictions of commercial speech, like that proposed in the DAIRY PRIDE Act, likely impose unconstitutional limitations on manufacturers’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This note recommends that both Congress and the FDA should refrain from passing a statute or promulgating a regulation like the DAIRY PRIDE Act. Rather, it proposes that adding rules to control the proportions and location of disclaimers on product labels …

Go to article

Invasion Of The Content-Neutrality Rule, William D. Araiza Jan 2019

Invasion Of The Content-Neutrality Rule, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Direct-To-Consumer Calls To Action: Lowering The Volume Of Claims And Disclosures In Prescription Drug Broadcast Advertisements, Andrew Andrzejewski Jan 2019

Direct-To-Consumer Calls To Action: Lowering The Volume Of Claims And Disclosures In Prescription Drug Broadcast Advertisements, Andrew Andrzejewski

Brooklyn Law Review

Pharmaceutical companies advertise drugs directly to consumers via television and radio broadcast commercials, print advertisements, and the internet. Although broadcast advertisements are demonstrably unable to adequately convey risk information, a total ban on them would be too restrictive, and any regulation targeting these advertisements must withstand First Amendment scrutiny. The FDA’s recent attempts to modify its requirements for broadcast advertisements do not overcome these challenges. It is in the best interest of patients, doctors, the drug industry, and the government for Congress to authorize the FDA to regulate broadcast drug advertisements as limited calls to action, consisting of restricted product …

Go to article

First Prev Next Last