First Amendment Commons^™

Pursuing A Universal Threshold For Regulating Incitement To Discrimination, Hostility Or Violence, Rebecca Meyer

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes that although the right to freedom of expression is essential, it is not absolute. The ICCPR prohibits speech that incites to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The provision prohibiting such speech is important to protect individuals and communities. Yet, not all countries are adequately enforcing its mandate. Such countries are letting inciting speech spread and, in some instances, violence has ensued. Conversely, some countries are taking enforcement too far, using the criminalization of inciting speech as a tool to silence political dissent. In light of the divergent interpretations—each problematic in its …

Telemarketing, Technology, And The Regulation Of Private Speech: First Amendment Lessons From The Fcc’S Tcpa Rules, Justin (Gus) Hurwitz

Brooklyn Law Review

This article considers the viability of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) in light of recent Supreme Court First Amendment precedent and technological and regulatory developments. Robocalls—phone calls made using autodialers or prerecorded messages without the consent of the call recipient—have become one of the primary consumer protection issues facing regulators. With more than 2.4 billion of these calls placed each month, consumer concern about them dominate complaints received by both the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission. Simultaneously, as cellphones have become a ubiquitous means by which individuals engage with one another and have become the public square, …

Prisoner-To-Public Communication, Demetria D. Frank

Brooklyn Law Review

The pervasive problem of over-incarceration in the United States is in part due to lack of correctional facility accountability to the public, and public lack of access to the prisoner experience. In light of the incessant persistence of over-incarceration and “hands off approach” taken by courts in prison administration, this article proposes an unqualified and unfettered prisoner-to-public communication right that would provide prison accountability to the public.

Google, Charlottesville, And The Need To Protect Private Employees’ Political Speech, Chloe M. Gordils

Brooklyn Law Review

At a time when the freedom of speech is increasingly under attack, the question becomes: what protections are available to employees of private companies who wish to engage in political expression while off the clock? Although public employees are in many ways protected by the First Amendment from government intrusion into their political speech, private employees in many states are left largely unprotected. This note examines the current statutory protections offered to protect private employees from being fired or retaliated against based on their political opinions, and argues that the inconsistency and unpredictability of state laws call for a uniform …

Speech-And-Display Laws: Balancing Physicians' Free Speech Rights And States' Interests In The Context Of Abortion, Emily Ruppert

Journal of Law and Policy

“The question is not pro-abortion or anti-abortion, the question is who makes the decision: a woman and her physician, or the government.” – Gloria Steinem

A Nation Of Informants: Reining In Post-9/11 Coercion Of Intelligence Informants, Diala Shamas

Brooklyn Law Review

This article challenges the adequacy of the existing legal and regulatory framework governing informant recruitment and coercion practices to protect fundamental rights, informed by the Muslim-American experience. It looks at the growing law enforcement practice of recruiting informants among Muslim-American communities for intelligence gathering purposes. Although the coercion of law-abiding individuals to provide information to federal law enforcement agencies for intelligence gathering purposes implicates significant rights, it is left unregulated. Existing, albeit limited, restraints on the government agents’ ability to coerce individuals to provide information either assume a criminal context, or are driven by historical concerns over FBI corruption. As …

Search Query: Can America Accept A Right To Be Forgotten As A Publicity Right?, James J. Lavelle

Brooklyn Law Review

Search engines have profoundly changed the relationship between privacy and free speech by making personal information widely and cheaply available to a global audience. This has raised many concerns both over how online companies handle the information they collect and how regular citizens use online services to invade other people’s privacy. One way Europe has addressed this change is by providing European Union citizens with a right to petition search engines to deindex links from search results—a so-called “right to be forgotten.” If the information contained in a search result is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant,” the search engine …

Political Ideology As A Limited Protected Class Under Federal Title Vii Antidiscrimination Law, Anne Carey

Journal of Law and Policy

As the political climate in the United States becomes increasingly divided, more and more employees are fired for their off-duty political speech. Political speech is highly protected from government interference under the First Amendment, but it is not well protected from discrimination in employment matters. This is despite the fact that employers can be just as powerful and influential as the government. Although employee political speech is not currently protected at the federal level, there are a myriad of state statutes that protect employee speech from employer retaliation. Some of these state statutes protect speech on a broader level, others …

Pickering, Garcetti, & Academic Freedom, Mark Strasser

Brooklyn Law Review

While the U. S. Supreme Court long ago recognized that individuals do not lose their free speech rights simply by virtue of being state employees, the contours of their First Amendment protections have been evolving over the past several decades. The proper way to apply these protections in the academic context is confusing, especially after Garcetti v. Ceballos in which the Court suggested that First Amendment protections do not attach insofar as individuals are speaking as employees rather than as citizens. The circuit courts have adopted a dizzying set of rules to determine when First Amendment protections are triggered in …

When The Fourth Estate’S Well Runs Dry, Megan L. Shaw

Brooklyn Law Review

The press is under fire. Members of the press often face subpoenas or similar court orders, compelling the disclosure of a source’s identity. By issuing media subpoenas, the government has effectively censored the press—the exact type of censorship that the Supreme Court held presumptively unconstitutional over eight decades ago in Near v. Minnesota. Yet the least protected—and most complicated—aspect of the newsgathering process is a reporter’s relationship with her source. For decades, journalists have tried to assert defenses to government compulsions on First Amendment grounds as well as by invoking a “reporter’s privilege,” a testimonial privilege similar to that of …

Section 230’S Liability Shield In The Age Of Online Terrorist, Jaime M. Freilich

Brooklyn Law Review

In recent years, “home grown” terrorists—individuals inspired to violence after watching terrorist videos online—have been responsible for devastating attacks in the United States and across Europe. Such terrorist propaganda falls outside the realm of the First Amendment’s protection because it has been proven to indoctrinate attackers, thus inciting imminent lawless action. Seizing on this, victims’ families have brought suits alleging that social media platforms, including Twitter, Facebook, and Google, provided material support to terrorists in violation of the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). The Communications Decency Act (CDA), however, has served as an impenetrable shield against these claims, protecting social media companies …

The Scrivener’S Secrets Seen Through The Spyglass: Gchq And The International Right To Journalistic Expression, Matthew B. Hurowitz

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

As part of the U.K.’s electronic surveillance program, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), started in 1909 to combat German Spies, now collects metadata from both foreigners and its own citizens. Through the express statutory authority of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000 (RIPA), and a loophole in section 94 of the Telecommunications Act of 1984, the GCHQ collects metadata, which is all of the information that is extrinsic to the actual contents of a communication. The GCHQ can request an authorization from a public authority—a member of its own staff—to collect traffic data, service use information, or subscriber …

Money, Speech, And Chutzpah, Joel Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Looking Backward, Moving Forward: What Must Be Remembered When Resolving The Right To Be Forgotten, Katherine Stewart

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

In May 2014, the European Court of Justice decided Google Spain v. AEPD and González and granted citizens the right to be forgotten, rather, the right to request any search engine offering services to European consumers to remove certain results displayed after a search of a citizen’s name. This decision has also resulted in an ongoing battle between Google and the Commission Nationale de l’Infomatique et des Libertés (CNIL), France’s data protection authority. The CNIL believes that Google must apply the right to be forgotten to all domains worldwide, including Google.com. Google, however, has been reluctant to do so, given …

Domestic Violence Law, Abusers’ Intent, And Social Media: How Transaction-Bound Statutes Are The True Threats To Prosecuting Perpetrators Of Gender-Based Violence, Megan L. Bumb

Brooklyn Law Review

The rapid expansion of social media has brought with it a new platform for perpetrators of domestic violence to assert power and control over their victims. The statutes presently used to prosecute abusers fail to protect victims from social media threats and to punish abusers for making those threats. Using the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Elonis v. United States, this note proposes a straightforward solution to a multifaceted problem—how to better protect victims of domestic violence from social media threats while maintaining abusers’ First Amendment rights. The answer is not mere clarification of the true threat doctrine; it is …

Fueling The Terrorist Fires With The First Amendment: Religious Freedom, The Anti-Lgbt Right, And Interest Convergence Theory, Kyle C. Velte

Brooklyn Law Review

This article argues that there is a connection between formal equality for LGBT Americans and the United States’ foreign policy and national security interests. It makes that connection utilizing Professor Derek Bell’s interest convergence paradigm. It argues that the new agenda of the American Religious Right is one that seeks to assert quasi-theocratic and anti-Establishment positions in litigation as well as in its promulgation of anti-LGBT laws. This agenda is cloaked in the garb of “religious freedom,” but the Religious Right’s definition of “religious freedom” is one that runs counter to our long-standing understanding of that principle as one that …

Denying Certiorari In Bell V. Itawamba County School Board: A Missed Opportunity To Clarify Students’ First Amendment Rights In The Digital Age, Elizabeth A. Shaver

Brooklyn Law Review

In the last decade, the federal circuit courts have grappled with the issue whether, and to what extent, school officials constitutionally may discipline students for their off-campus electronic speech. Before 2015, three federal circuit courts had extended school authority to off-campus electronic speech by applying a vague test that allows school officials to reach far beyond the iconic “schoolhouse gate” referenced in the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Two other federal circuits had avoided the issue altogether by deciding the cases before them on other grounds. In 2015, the Fifth Circuit Court …

Free Speech Matters: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment, Joel M. Gora

Journal of Law and Policy

This article contends that the Roberts Court, in the period from 2006 to 2016, arguably became the most speech-protective Supreme Court in memory. In a series of wide-ranging First Amendment decisions, the Court sounded and strengthened classic free speech themes and principles. Taken together, the Roberts Court’s decisions have left free speech rights much stronger than they were found.

Those themes and principles include a strong libertarian distrust of government regulation of speech and presumption in favor of letting people control speech, a consistent refusal to fashion new “non-speech” categories, a reluctance to “balance” free speech away against governmental interests, …

Introduction; The Past, Present And Future Of Free Speech, Joel M. Gora

Journal of Law and Policy

This short paper introduces the papers and commentary produced at two significant First Amendment occasions. First was a 40^th anniversary celebration of the Supreme Court’s landmark 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the fountainhead ruling on the intersection between campaign finance restrictions and First Amendment rights. The questions were discussed provocatively by two of the leading players in that decision, James Buckley himself, now a retired United States Circuit Judge, and Ira Glasser, former head of the ACLU who helped organize a strange bedfellows, left-right coalition to challenge the new federal election campaign laws on First Amendment grounds. …

Where's The Fire?, Burt Neuborne

Journal of Law and Policy

Freedom of speech is priceless, but distressingly fragile. Life, and law, would be much simpler if we could react to free speech's importance and fragility by granting it absolute legal protection. Since, however, absolute protection of speech is not—and should not be—a serious option, we face the legal realist challenge of erecting a First Amendment legal structure capable of providing real-world protection to highly controversial speech, often by weak speakers, without closing the door to government regulation. Given the uncertainty inherent in applying fact-dependent complex rules in protean factual settings, many potential speakers would avoid being drawn into unpredictable and …

Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection, Andrew P. Napolitano

Journal of Law and Policy

The First Amendment is not the guardian of taste. Instead, the U.S. Constitution wholeheartedly protects freedom of thought and expression, even if generated and defined by hatred, as long as that expression does not produce immediate lawless violence. Although free speech may lead to tenuous relationships or uncomfortable debates, it must be defended unconditionally. Too many politicians and lawmakers believe that the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment attaches only to those ideas and expressions that they approve of; this is not so. This article argues that the Founders intended the First Amendment's free speech principle as a …

Freedom Of Speech And Equality: Do We Have To Choose?, Nadine Strossen

Journal of Law and Policy

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary …

The Academy, Campaign Finance, And Free Speech Under Fire, Bradley A. Smith

Journal of Law and Policy

This article discusses the issue of campaign finance and the impact money has on the political process in the country. The author suggests campaign finance regulations that curb the current threat it poses to the system, as well as the First Amendment itself. Lastly, the author discusses the impact academics have had on the debate and this decline in support of free speech that has resulted from the debate.

Money And Speech: Practical Perspectives, Nicholas W. Allard

Journal of Law and Policy

Dean Allard provides a practical perspective on the topic of money, politics and free speech based on his over three decades worth of experience in lobbying, campaigns and public policy. Commentary also includes opinions as to the state of politics in America and the problems with reforming campaign finance law.

Producing Democratic Vibrancy, K. Sabeel Rahman

Journal of Law and Policy

Professor Rahman gives his thoughts and opinions on the impact of Citizens' United v. FEC and the growth of the First Amendment debate since. The comment analyzes the normative udnerstanding of democracy and the ongoing debate campaifgn finance have. Professor Rahman concludes by suggesting that the debate is wrongly focused on the indivudals being consumers of politcal speech rather than the producers of it.

Persistent Threats To Commercial Speech, Jonathan H. Adler

Journal of Law and Policy

The current Supreme Court is very protective of speech, including commercial speech. Threats to commercial speech persist nonetheless. This article briefly examines two: the use of commercial speech restrictions as a form of rent-seeking, and compelled commercial speech. Regulation of commercial speech protect is sometimes used to protect established corporate interests from competitors who are less able to bear the costs of regulation, with consequences that extend beyond the economic marketplace. In the case of commercial speech, courts have been unduly deferential to claims of a consumer “right to know” as a basis for mandated labeling and disclosure. Greater protection …

A Balancing Act For American Universities: Anti-Harassment Policy V. Freedom Of Speech, Bridget Hart

Journal of Law and Policy

Legal scholars, educational administrators, journalists, and students have all witnessed a rise in students being disciplined by university officials for speech and conduct deemed inappropriate for college campuses. In endeavoring to explain this trend, some academics point to the disconnect between the Department of Education and university administrators regarding the legal standards for campus anti-harassment policies. The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes harassment on college campuses has resulted in the punishment of students by universities for speech and conduct that is normally considered to be protected speech under the First Amendment. This note first provides an overview of the …

Beyond Body Cameras: Defending A Robust Right To Record The Police, Jocelyn Simonson

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

How To Think About Religious Freedom In An Egalitarian Age, Nelson Tebbe

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Two Views Of First Amendment Thought Privacy, Adam J. Kolber

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.