First Amendment Commons^™

Incitement In The Mosques: Testing The Limits Of Free Speech And Religious Liberty, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

In times of terror and tension, civil liberties are at their greatest peril. Nowadays, no individual rights are more in jeopardy than the freedoms of speech and religion. This is true particularly for followers of Islam, whose leaders have become increasingly radical in both their preaching and practice. "Kill the Jews!" and "Kill the Americans!" are chants heard regularly in many Middle Eastern mosques, as frightful echoes of the fatwa are issued by today's quintessential terrorist, Osama bin Laden. The incitement continues unabated to this day. In April of 2004, for example, a Muslim preacher at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in …

The Other Sullivan Case, Garrett Epps, Garrett Epps

All Faculty Scholarship

The standard triumphalist narrative of NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN celebrates the Supreme Court's defense of free speech and press in the case's vindication of powerful journalistic institution. Ignored in this story is the story of the local defendants, civil rights leaders in Alabama who had their solvency threatened by the state courts' vindictive action against them. These defendants challenged the segregated proceedings used in court to affix liability to them—but the Supreme Court ignored their arguments and ignored the racial-equality and individual-rights aspects of the case. From their point of view, SULLIVAN might be so unalloyed a triumph.

Ub Viewpoint – Journalists May Face Contempt For Protecting Sources, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Adjudicative Speech And The First Amendment, Christopher J. Peters

All Faculty Scholarship

While political speech - speech intended to influence political decisions - is afforded the highest protection under the First Amendment, adjudicative speech - speech intended to influence court decisions - is regularly and systematically constrained by rules of evidence, canons of professional ethics, judicial gag orders, and similar devices. Yet court decisions can be as important, both to the litigants and to society at large, as political decisions. How then can our practice of severely constraining adjudicative speech be justified as consistent with First Amendment principles?

This Article attempts to answer that question in a way that is informative about …

Ideological Conflict And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

According to the prevailing view, constitutional interpretation ideally should consist in the development and application of a single, unified set of principles. This Essay challenges this position in the context of free speech jurisprudence. As the constitutional debates of 1787-91 show, the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights did not reflect a single view, but instead were intended to reconcile conflicting views on the proper relationship between liberty and government. In order to obtain the broad support necessary for adoption, the Bill of Rights was deliberately drafted on the level of general principles that could command a consensus. When …

Public Importance: Balancing Proprietary Rights And The Right To Know, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

Articulating a coherent, all-encompassing First Amendment doctrine for freedom of speech and of the press has so far eluded every scholar who has tried, not least because of the variety of analytical approaches and potentially dispositive factors in Supreme Court jurisprudence. For example, the same regulation might be enforceable in one medium, but not another; in one forum, but not another. Enforceability may depend on the regulator's purpose and drafting skill, or not, depending in turn on whether the speech deserves full protection, some protection, or no protection at all. Sometimes enforceability depends on the speaker's intent, or knowledge, or …

Ub Viewpoint – Dissolving The Shadows, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

"Charitable Choice" And The Accountability Challenge: Reconciling The Need For Regulation With The First Amendment Religion Clauses, Michele E. Gilman

All Faculty Scholarship

Since 1996, Congress has included charitable choice provisions in several social welfare statutes to encourage the participation of religious organizations in administering government-funded social service programs. In this Article, Professor Michele Gilman discusses the lack of accountability to beneficiaries that occurs when public funds are given to religious organizations for secular programs, and she proposes solutions to this problem. As Professor Gilman explains, doctrines that constrain abuses of governmental discretion, such as administrative procedure acts and constitutional restrictions, generally do not apply when public programs are privatized. Moreover, religious organizations are often insulated from public scrutiny because of First Amendment …

Spheres Of Autonomy: Reforming The Content Neutrality Doctrine In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

In recent decades, the doctrine of content neutrality has become the cornerstone of First Amendment jurisprudence. In the leading case of Police Department v. Mosley (1972), the Supreme Court declared that speech may "never" be regulated because of its content, for that would be "the essence of . . . censorship." If this view were taken literally, however, it would disable government from regulating speech even when necessary to prevent serious injury to individuals or society. In response to this concern, the Court has carved out several exceptions to the neutrality doctrine. Yet the Justices have never succeeded in explaining …

Rewriting Near V. Minnesota: Creating A Complete Definition Of Prior Restraint, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Near v. Minnesota, while establishing the prior restraint doctrine as a critical element for First Amendment analysis, failed to give a definition of prior restraint. The result has been inconsistent and unpredictable application of the doctrine as well as diminished protection of free expression. This article takes the next critical step in the journey begun by Near v. Minnesota; it attempts to create a comprehensive definition of prior restraint using the principles of separation of powers. Because all three branches can create 'prior restraints,' the prevention of unconstitutional restraints will necessitate different safeguards depending on which branch …

The Neglected History Of The Prior Restraint Doctrine: Rediscovering The Link Between The First Amendment And The Separation Of Powers, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The prior restraint doctrine, once so fundamental to Constitutional Jurisprudence, has lost much of its effectiveness over the years. Nevertheless, prior restraint doctrine is crucial to preserving the line between protected and unprotected speech. One of the fundamental problems that contribute to the current ineffectiveness of prior restraint doctrine is that there exists no comprehensive definition of "prior restraint". This article chronicles the historical roots of prior restraint in order to arrive at a generally accepted legal definition. Through the course of this historical journey, the article yields a heretofore unexplored aspect of prior restraint doctrine, namely that prior restraint …

State Supported Speech, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Righting The Balance: An Inquiry Into The Foundations And Limits Of Freedom Of Expression, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

Contemporary disputes over the First Amendment often result in deadlock. One side stresses the paramount value of free speech, while the other side points to the harms that particular kinds of speech can cause. It is difficult to see how this impasse can be broken without a more general account of the scope of free expression: a view that integrates both the justifications and the limits of freedom of speech into a coherent whole. This Article makes a start toward developing such a theory. Its central thesis is that freedom of speech is a right that is limited by the …

Sovereign Indignity? Values, Borders And The Internet: A Case Study, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article focuses on the publication ban issued by a Canadian court in a notorious murder trial, and the popular reaction to the publication ban, as a case study of the new global communications environment. Part I reconstructs the factual circumstances that provoked the ban, as well as the responses of the media, the legal establishment, and the public. Part II examines the ban itself, the constitutional challenge mounted by the media, and the landmark Dagenais decision. Part III reflects on the meaning of the entire episode for law, journalism, and national sovereignty.

The Dagenais decision demonstrates the continued independence …

Holocaust Denial And The First Amendment: The Quest For Truth In A Free Society, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

From the ashes of the Holocaust we have come once again to learn the terrible truth, that the power of Evil cannot be underestimated. Nor can the effect of the spoken and written word. It has been but a half-century since the liberation of Nazi death camps, a little more than a decade since the First International Conference on the Holocaust and Human Rights, and a few short years since the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum first put on display its documentation of horror. Yet today that form of historical revisionism popularly called "Holocaust denial" abounds worldwide in all its …

Two Wrongs Mock A Right: Overcoming The Cohen Maledicta That Bar First Amendment Protection For Newsgathering, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., Justice Byron R. White wrote that the First Amendment offers no protection from the enforcement of "generally applicable laws" against newsgatherers and that First Amendment protection applies only to information that has been "lawfully acquired." This Article shows that these doctrines are not only false, but have already done serious damage to First Amendment interests. It surveys lower court decisions from around the country to demonstrate the doctrines' pernicious influence, then it evaluates alternative solutions to the problem. The article concludes that the most effective, if least likely, solution would be a rule that …

Free Speech Faces Hostile Environment: An Aggressive Hunt For Sex Harassment Leaves Plenty Of Wreckage, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

Take the case of James Maas, who has been teaching at Cornell University for more than 30 years and whose Psychology 101 is perhaps the largest undergraduate course in the country (attracting about 1,000 students every semester). He was won numerous teaching awards. In 1994, Mr. Maas was called before Cornell's "Professional Ethics Committee" to defend himself against charges of sexual harassment. The allegations centered around his "overly friendly and affectionate behavior" - which, it turns out, were hugs and occasional social kisses, most often in front of class or family.

The most notable example of a professor who stood …

Closing The Barn Door After The Genie Is Out Of The Bag: Recognizing A "Futility Principle" In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article argues for a simple proposition: the First Amendment imposes a presumption against the suppression of speech when suppression would be futile. Suppression is futile when the speech is available to the same audience through some other medium or at some other place. The government can overcome this presumption of futility only when it asserts an important interest that is unrelated to the content of the speech in question, and only when the suppression directly advances that interest.

In Part I, the article explores the role that this unarticulated "futility principle" has played in Supreme Court and other decisions …

Business Information And "Personal Data": Some Common-Law Observations About The Eu Draft Data Protection Directive, James Maxeiner

All Faculty Scholarship

Discusses the public interest in the free flow of information.

Love Speech: The Social Utility Of Pornography, Jeffrey G. Sherman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Authors, Editors, And Uncommon Carriers: Identifying The "Speaker" Within The New Media, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment analysis has historically depended on whether a party is a speaker, an editor, or a carrier. With communications technology rapidly evolving, determining which category is appropriate becomes increasingly complex, and ascertaining the First Amendment protections that are applied to various actors in the process of diffusing ideas becomes difficult. This article looks to the historical treatment of the First Amendment rights of speakers, editors, and distributors. This article traces the Supreme Court’s treatment of speech regulations on new technologies, from telegraph and telephone regulations to the seminal Turner Broadcast System, Inc. v. FCC case that created rules for …

Virtual Constitutions: The Creation Of Rules For Governing Private Networks, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article discusses the legal issues involving the owners of private computer networks. These issues include public/private network distinctions, First Amendment free speech issues, liability for computer network owners for improper speech posted on their networks, and anti-trust questions. The article analyzes the complexities that result from different forms of network ownership and the relationship of such networks to governmental entities.

Fight Muhammad's 'Secret' With Facts, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And Fcc Rule Making Under The 1992 Cable Act, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores the First Amendment implications of the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) regulations issued under the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 19921 (1992 Cable Act). The 1992 Cable Act imposes numerous requirements that are beyond the scope of this Article. This Article analyzes only the FCC's exercise of rule making discretion under the 1992 Cable Act.

Additionally, it must be remembered that an under-staffed FCC was given an enormous amount of work to do within fixed time limits. Therefore, it must be expected that the rulemaking would be vulnerable to second-guessing. Nonetheless, whenever a governmental entity …

Tort Liability, The First Amendment, And Equal Access To Electronic Networks, Henry H. Perritt Jr.

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Extinction And The Law: Protection Of Religiously Motivated Behavior, Fred P. Bosselman

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Religious Liberty In The Military: The First Amendment Under "Friendly Fire", Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

Though freedom of religion remains one of our most cherished values, it is still among the most controversial of constitutional rights. This is especially true in the context of military service. Even those who purposefully enlist in the armed forces, implicitly giving up certain liberties they freely enjoyed as civilians, would not relinquish their freedom of conscience. Yet the right to practice their religious beliefs, unfettered by arbitrary governmental restrictions, is regularly challenged.

Fortunately, however, most western cultures regard religious liberty as so fundamental that their military establishments routinely develop regulations to accommodate specific religious practices.

This principle was of …

The Trouble With Protest, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

To Stimulate, Provoke, Or Incite? Hate Speech And The First Amendment, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

If protecting freedom of speech is one of mankind's noblest pursuits, then restricting it is the most difficult. Yet limit we must: even the purest civil libertarian will concede that false shouts of fire cannot be countenanced nor broadcasts of wartime troop movements; even those who object to obscenity laws recognize the need for enabling redress of libel; and even those who would protect the right to be insulting do not defend inflammatory words spit out nose-to-nose. Now a spate of "speech codes" on college campuses has once again brought the first amendment to the fore, part of a simmering …

Some Words Are Injurious . . . Some Cause A Raging Storm, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.