First Amendment Commons^™

A New Frontier For An International Right With No Frontiers: Freedom Of Expression & Generative Ai Outputs, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

As people debate whether the First Amendment protects generative AI outputs, we should also reflect on what the global freedom of expression standard has to say on the matter. This standard will affect discussions around national and regional regulatory approaches to generative AI throughout the world. In addition, global corporate responsibility standards call on companies to respect international human rights in their operations, which may also impact how businesses that provide generative AI services approach their activities.

I argue that the global free expression standard protects the rights of individuals to seek and receive information of any kind, including gen …

Two Dogmas Of Free Speech Doctrine, David R. Dow

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Oklahoma’S Bible Policy: The Evolving Establishment Clause From Lemon To Kennedy, Carson Douglas Shaw

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Unconstitutional Attempt To Criminalize Naming Ice Agents, Noah C. Chauvin

Faculty Articles

Some members of Congress propose to make it a crime to publish the name of a federal official with the intent of obstructing that official’s law or immigration enforcement duties. This Essay considers whether the lawmakers’ bill, the Protecting Law Enforcement from Doxxing Act, is consistent with the First Amendment. It is not.

Understanding Free Speech Values At The Supreme Court, Noah C. Chauvin

Faculty Articles

This essay is a book review of The Supreme Court and the Philosopher: How John Stuart Mill Shaped US Free Speech Protections, by Professors Eric Kasper and Troy Kozma. The book argues that John Stuart Mill had an indelible impact on the Supreme Court's free speech jurisprudence, and that through the power of precedent, we have come to have a "Millian "First Amendment. As I explain in the review, Kasper and Kozma have made a compelling case. However, because Mill offered an expansive defense of freedom of expression, it is not enough to say that the Court's free speech jurisprudence …

Shareholder Activism & Unconstitutionally Compelled Speech, Steven J. Cleveland

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Rights On Trial: A Critique Of The Time, Place, And Manner Doctrine, Alec Greven

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Charter Schools And State Action: An Analysis Through The Lens Of Agency Law, S. Ernie Walton

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment, Global Corporate Responsibility Standards, & The Quest For Online "Speech Nirvana", Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

With large and powerful social media companies operating as worldwide speech regulators, it is unsurprising that governments have attempted to not only regulate how these companies address platform speech but also pressure them to deliver preferred speech outcomes. In 2024, the Supreme Court decided two cases addressing both themes in the U.S. context. In Moody v. NetChoice, the Court explained how legislation regulating private platform curation of usergenerated content runs afoul of First Amendment protections. And, in Murthy v. Missouri, the Court appeared to erect significant hurdles to challenging alleged governmental coercion of such platforms. These cases have left many …

Insider Trading & Unconstitutionally Complelled Speech, Steven J. Cleveland

Faculty Articles

The Supreme Court has recently weaponized the First Amendment to invalidate economic regulations. Consequently, the Court’s current analytical framework risks invalidating as unconstitutional certain speech compelled by Congress and the SEC to combat insider trading.

The government may compel speech to combat fraud, and many courts and commentators view insider trading as a fraud against the counterparty to the insider’s trade. Today, the government primarily resorts to Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and its implementing regulations, including Rule 10b-5, to combat insider trading. Those regulations prohibit deceptive conduct and do not directly compel speech. Interestingly, in …

Market Failure And Censorship In The Marketplace Of Ideas, John P. Anderson, Jeremy Kidd

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The S.E.C.'S Unconstitutionally Compelled Speech, Steven J. Cleveland

Faculty Articles

Congress delegated to the Securities & Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) the regulation of the sale and trading of securities as well as the solicitation of proxies. The S.E.C. compels disclosure by involved parties to ensure that investors can make informed decisions regarding their trades and the exercise of voting rights with respect to their securities. Such important governmental interests routinely leave one without basis to challenge the compelled speech imposed by the S.E.C. Because it generally can compel speech by parties involved in securities transactions and the solicitation of proxies, the S.E.C. is insensitive to situations when legitimate First Amendment issues …

Diversity Disclosures: Unconstitutionally Compelled Speech By The Sec, Steven Cleveland

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Sincerity, Subjectivity & Religion: The Evolution Of Rfra From A Constitutional Shield To A Political Sword, Emily Kathryn Tubb

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Against Corporate Activism: Examining The Use Of Corporate Speech To Promote Corporate Social Responsibility, W.C. Bunting

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishing A Right To Last Rites: Examining Death Row Inmates’ Right To Clergy Presence In The Execution Chamber In Gutierrez V. Saenz, Sarah B. Conley

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn't Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

The First Amendment Has Entered The Chat: Oklahoma’S Cyberharassment Law, Trae Havens

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Failing To Protect Public Employees’ First Amendment Rights: The Need For A Presumption Of Public Concern For Truthful Testimony, Anna H. Mcneil

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lemons, Legislatures, And Liberties: The Constitutionality Of Prayer At Public School Board Meetings, Kaitlyn M. Huelskamp

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

In A World Of "Fake News," What's A Social Media Platform To Do?, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

While the circulation of disinformation and misinformation online can pose a variety of risks to societies around the world, it should also be of concern that overreacting to such false information can undermine human rights, including freedom of expression. The business operations of global social media platforms frequently intersect with this latter concern because of a spike in the adoption of national laws that ban “fake news” as well as their own platform policies to tackle false information. This Essay assesses the corporate responsibility standards afforded by the United Nations’ Guiding Principles on Business & Human Rights as well as …

Facebook's Speech Code And Policies: How They Suppress Speech And Distort Democratic Deliberation, Joseph Thai

Faculty Articles

With nearly two and a half billion users-a third of the world's population- Facebook far and away hosts the largest speech platform in the history of humanity. In the United States, seven out of ten adults use it, and nearly half get news from it. It is therefore no exaggeration to observe that Facebook's self-promulgated rules for "what is and is not allowed on Facebook," its content-based Community Standards, rival if not exceed the First Amendment's importance in shaping discourse in the United States. Yet, unlike the First Amendment, which only protects against government censorship, no scholarship has scrutinized the …

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision And The Clash Between Nondiscrimination And Religious Freedom, Klint W. Alexander, Ph.D, J.D.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecuting Fatal Speech: What Minnesota’S State V. Final Exit Network Means For Assisted-Suicide Laws Across The Country, Anthony W. Joyce

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lies, Line Drawing, And (Deep) Fake News, Marc Jonathan Blitz

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legislating Against Lying In Campaigns And Elections, Joshua S. Sellers

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Right To Receive Foreign Speech, Joseph Thai

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Introductory Essay: Old Principles For An (Allegedly) Brave New World, Harry F. Tepker

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their …

Editor’S Introduction, Mitchell B. Bryant

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.