First Amendment Commons^™

Fissures, Fractures & Doctrinal Drifts: Paying The Price In First Amendment Jurisprudence For A Half Decade Of Avoidance, Minimalism & Partisanship, Clay Calvert, Matthew D. Bunker

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article comprehensively examines how the U.S. Supreme Court’s adherence to principles of constitutional avoidance and judicial minimalism, along with partisan rifts among the Justices, have detrimentally affected multiple First Amendment doctrines over the past five years. The doctrines analyzed here include true threats, broadcast indecency, offensive expression, government speech, and strict scrutiny, as well as the fundamental dichotomy between content-based and contentneutral regulations.

Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Court’s campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.

As a normative matter, it argues that following …

The First Amendment And The World, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Persistent Threats To Commercial Speech, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

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 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 also been unduly deferential to claims of a consumer “right to know” as a basis for mandated labeling and disclosure. Greater and …

Compelled Commercial Speech And The Consumer "Right To Know", Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Compelled commercial speech, including mandatory labeling and the disclosure of factually true information, should not be seen as a separate category of speech under the First Amendment. Rather, compelled commercial speech should be understood as a type of commercial speech and be subject to the same level of protection as commercial speech generally. Accordingly, commercial speech compulsions, such as mandatory disclosures and labeling requirements, must be supported by a substantial government interest under the Central Hudson framework. The assertion of a consumer “right to know” does not constitute such an interest and cannot, by itself, justify compelled commercial speech within …

(Same) Sex, Lies, And Democracy: Tradition, Religion, And Substantive Due Process (With An Emphasis On Obergefell V. Hodges), Stephen M. Feldman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Substantive due process issues implicitly concern voice. Whose voice will be heard? Although such issues often remain submerged, the Justices occasionally translate them into disputes over democratic participation and power. The Supreme Court’s most important substantive due process decision in years, Obergefell v. Hodges, entailed such a battle over democracy. The multiple dissenting opinions insisted that the decision demeaned the opponents of same-sex marriage, many of whom were inspired by traditional values and religious convictions. The majority explicitly disagreed, reasoning that the case resolved the rights of same-sex couples to marry and did not diminish the opponents’ voices. The dissenters …

The Establishment Clause, State Action, And Town Of Greece, Nathan S. Chapman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Establishment Clause forbids the government from engaging in the same religious exercise that the law protects when performed by a private party. Thus, an establishment case often turns on whether religious activity is “state action.” Too often, however, courts ignore the state action analysis or merge it with the substantive Establishment Clause analysis. This muddles both doctrines and threatens individual religious liberty.

This Article argues that the state action doctrine should account for the government’s distribution of private rights. Accordingly, the Constitution applies to the government’s distribution of rights, but not to a private party’s use of those rights. …

Regulating Drones Under The First And Fourth Amendments, Marc Jonathan Blitz, James Grimsley, Stephen E. Henderson, Joseph Thai

William & Mary Law Review

The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 requires the Federal Aviation Administration to integrate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, into the national airspace system by September 2015. Yet perhaps because of their chilling accuracy in targeted killings abroad, perhaps because of an increasing consciousness of diminishing privacy more generally, and perhaps simply because of a fear of the unknown, divergent UAV-restrictive legislation has been proposed in Congress and enacted in a number of states. Given UAV utility and cost-effectiveness over a vast range of tasks, however, widespread commercial use ultimately seems certain. Consequently, it is imperative to understand …

#Tweeting For Terrorism: First Amendment Implications In Using Proterrorist Tweets To Convict Under The Material Support Statute, Abigail M. Pierce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Shouting 'Fire' In A Theater": The Life And Times Of Constitutional Law's Most Enduring Analogy, Carlton F.W. Larson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the specter of a man falsely shouting “fire” in a theater into First Amendment law. Nearly one hundred years later, this remains the most enduring analogy in constitutional law. It has been relied on in hundreds of constitutional cases, and it has permeated popular discourse on the scope of individual rights.

This Article examines both the origins and the later life of Holmes’s theater analogy. Part I is a detective story, seeking to solve the mystery of how Holmes came up with this particular example. This story takes us to the forgotten world …

First Amendment Cosmopolitanism, Skepticism, And Democracy, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

This is a response to Professor Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.’s review of my book, The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Protecting Transborder Expressive and Religious Liberties (Cambridge University Press, 2014). The response explains the basic principles of First Amendment cosmopolitanism and highlights the importance of the First Amendment’s transborder dimension. It also responds to skeptical and critical reactions to some of the book’s arguments. Finally, the response elaborates on First Amendment cosmopolitanism’s relationship to democratic values.

Neither Tinker, Nor Hazelwood, Nor Fraser, Nor Morse: Why Violent Student Assignments Represent A Unique First Amendment Challenge, William C. Nevin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article will both (1) explore a subset of violent student speech cases that could rightly be considered under Hazelwood if only the student expression bore the sign of official school sponsorship and (2) argue for the creation of a new standard based on Hazelwood to govern non-sponsored curricular speech. Furthermore, this new standard would operate much like the current Hazelwood analysis with one key distinction: where student speech is curricular and non-sponsored in nature, the only options available to school administrators would be those representing pedagogical counter-speech. Punitive discipline, such as the suspension seen in Cuff, would not be …

Snap: How The Moral Elasticity Of The Denaturalization Statute Goes Too Far, Aram A. Gavoor, Daniel Miktus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Comprehensive immigration reform is a popular topic in Congress. While many reform bills have been offered, none have addressed the significant substantive and procedural issues surrounding denaturalization, the process where the federal government may seek to have a naturalized person’s citizenship revoked in federal court if his citizenship was unlawfully or fraudulently procured.Though denaturalization serves public policy as a final check on naturalization fraud, existing law also permits the government to denaturalize an individual solely for speech and expressive association that occurs after one acquires citizenship. This provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(c), violates naturalized citizens’ First Amendment rights to free …

The Empirical Irony Of The Conflict Between Antidiscrimination And Religious Freedom, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The (Hoped For) Shallowness Of Progressive Skepticism Towards Religious Freedom, Nathan B. Oman

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Leak Prosecutions And The First Amendment: New Developments And A Closer Look At The Feasibility Of Protecting Leakers, Heidi Kitrosser

William & Mary Law Review

This Article revisits the free speech protections that leakers are due in light of recent commentaries and events. Among other things, the Article critiques arguments to the effect that the Obama Administration’s uptick in leak prosecutions does not threaten the system of free speech because plenty of classified information still makes its way into newspapers and the absolute number of leaker prosecutions remains very low. Such positions overlook the slanted impact that prosecutions and investigations are likely to have—and reportedly have had—on the speech marketplace. The Article also explains that even though the increase in prosecutions and other recent developments, …

The First Amendment’S Public Forum, John D. Inazu

William & Mary Law Review

The quintessential city park symbolizes a core feature of a democratic polity: the freedom of all citizens to express their views in public spaces free from the constraints of government imposed orthodoxy. The city park finds an unlikely cousin in the federal tax code’s recognition of deductions for contributions made to charitable, religious, and educational organizations. Together, these three categories of tax-exempt organizations encompass a vast array of groups in civil society.

The city park is a traditional public forum under First Amendment doctrine, and the charitable, educational, and religious deductions under the federal tax code function much like a …

National Security Information Disclosures And The Role Of Intent, Mary-Rose Papandrea

William & Mary Law Review

In the public discourse, the perceived intent of those who disclose national security information without authorization plays an important role in whether they are labeled as heroes or traitors. Should it matter whether Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning leaked government information to WikiLeaks knowing that our enemies might benefit from the information? Is it relevant that Edward Snowden believed—or that a reasonable person would believe—that the topsecret government surveillance programs he revealed were illegal, or that the public value in knowing about these programs outweighed any risk of harm to national security? This Article examines whether intent—and what kind of intent— …

Internet Exceptionalism: An Overview From General Constitutional Law, Mark Tushnet

William & Mary Law Review

This Article considers First Amendment Internet exceptionalism. I use that term in what I think is a reasonably standard way to refer to the question of whether the technological characteristics of the Internet (and, more generally, twenty-first-century information technologies) justify treating regulation of information dissemination through the Internet differently from regulation of such dissemination through nineteenth- and twentieth-century media, such as print, radio, and television. My aim here is not to provide an answer to that question, but to identify several subquestions whose answers must be part of the larger answer.

New Problems For Subsidized Speech, Joseph Blocher

William & Mary Law Review

The constitutionality of conditional offers from the government is a transsubstantive issue with broad and growing practical implications, but it has always been a particular problem for free speech. Recent developments suggest at least three new approaches to the problem, but no easy solutions to it. The first approach would permit conditions that define the limits of the government spending program, while forbidding conditions that leverage funding so as to regulate speech outside the contours of the program. This is an appealing distinction, but runs into some of the same challenges as public forum analysis. The second approach would treat …

The Marrow Of Tradition: The Roberts Court And Categorical First Amendment Speech Exclusions, Gregory P. Magarian

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

When Are Constitutional Rights Non-Absolute? Mccutcheon, Conflicts, And The Sufficiency Question, Mark D. Rosen

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Producing Speech, Ashutosh Bhagwat

William & Mary Law Review

In recent years, a large number of disputes have arisen in which parties invoke the First Amendment, but the government action they challenge does not directly regulate “speech,” as in communication. Instead, the government is restricting the creation of communicative materials that are intended to be disseminated in the future—in other words, they restrict producing speech. Examples of such disputes include bans on recording public officials in public places, Los Angeles County’s ban on bareback (condom-less) pornography, restrictions on tattoo parlors, so-called “Ag-Gag” laws forbidding making records of agricultural operations, as well as many others. The question this Article addresses …

The Zombie First Amendment, Julie E. Cohen

William & Mary Law Review

Scholarly and popular critiques of contemporary free speech jurisprudence have noted an attitude of unquestioning deference to the political power of money. Rather than sheltering the ability to speak truth to power, they have lamented, the contemporary First Amendment shelters power’s ability to make and propagate its own truth. This Article relates developments in recent First Amendment jurisprudence to a larger struggle now underway to shape the distribution of information power in the era of informational capitalism. In particular, it argues that cases about political speech—cases that lie at the First Amendment’s traditional core—tell only a small part of the …

First Amendment Expansionism, Leslie Kendrick

William & Mary Law Review

In recent years, many litigants have found the First Amendment to be a useful tool. One could mention pornography actors, tattoo artists, death row inmates, and corporate interests from small photography shops to meat trade associations to cigarette manufacturers to pharmaceutical companies. All have raised First Amendment claims in the last few years, and nearly all of them have met with some level of success.

These claims are examples of what has been called First Amendment opportunism, where litigants raise novel free speech claims that may involve the repackaging of other types of legal arguments. To the extent that many …

Reconciling Privacy And Speech In The Era Of Big Data: A Comparative Legal Analysis, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

William & Mary Law Review

In both the United States and the nations of Western Europe, significant constitutional commitments safeguard both expressive freedom (including freedom of speech and of the press) and also a generalized constitutional right of privacy. With some regularity, however, these rights will come into conflict, as the protection of one right can be achieved only at the cost of abridging or denying the other. When a government official or public figure objects to the publication of an embarrassing photograph, perhaps taken by an invasive paparazzo, it is simply not possible to fully vindicate both a newspaper’s interest in publishing the photograph …

The Right Of Publicity And The First Amendment In The Modern Age Of Commercial Speech, Martin H. Redish, Kelsey B. Shust

William & Mary Law Review

The so-called right of publicity gives individuals a legally protected interest against commercially motivated communicators’ use of their names or likenesses for purposes of commercial gain. Although the right is sometimes viewed as a subcategory of the right of privacy, it may be exercised by the best known celebrities, as well as by the most private individual. It is therefore more properly characterized as a property interest in one’s name and likeness than a protection of one’s privacy.

In order to satisfy the concerns of the First Amendment right of free expression, however, the statutory and common law development of …

Why Data Privacy Law Is (Mostly) Constitutional, Neil M. Richards

William & Mary Law Review

Laws regulating the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data are (mostly) constitutional, and critics who suggest otherwise are wrong. Since the New Deal, American law has rested on the wise judgment that, by and large, commercial regulation should be made on the basis of economic and social policy, rather than blunt constitutional rules. This has become one of the basic principles of American constitutional law. Although some observers have suggested that the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. changes this state of affairs, such readings are incorrect. Sorrell involved a challenge to a …

The Politics And Incentives Of First Amendment Coverage, Frederick Schauer

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Accommodation Statutes And Sexual Orientation: Should There Be A Religious Exemption For Secular Businesses?, Lucien J. Dhooge

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article examines the issue of whether there should be a religious exemption for secular businesses from public accommodation statutes that protect prospective patrons from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Article examines this issue in the context of protecting free exercise of religion versus offering services to all members of the public equally and without distinction. The Article concludes that the perceived threat to religious liberty posed by such statutes is exaggerated, that the consequences of granting exemptions would be harmful, and that state-sanctioned discrimination is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice and equality underlying the …