First Amendment Commons^™

Ten Commandments, Nine Judges, And Five Versions Of One Amendment - The First. ("Now What?"), William W. Van Alstyne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

But Could They Pray At Uva? The Fourth Circuit's Application Of The Supreme Court's School Prayer Jurisprudence To The Virginia Military Institute's Adult Cadets, Alexander A. Minard

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Scienter, Causation, And Harm In Freedom Of Expression Analysis: The Right Hand Side Of The Constitutional Calculus, Wilson Huhn

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Challenging The Wisdom Of Solomon: The First Amendment And Military Recruitment On Campus, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Symbolic Counter-Speech, Harold M. Wasserman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Terrorism And The Bill Of Rights, Rodney A. Smolla

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This year is the Tenth Anniversary of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, and the Journal is very fortunate and honored to have Professor Rodney Smolla publish an article in this year's volume. Professor Smolla played an integral role in the founding and organizing of not only the Journal, but also the Institute of Bill of Rights Law at William & Mary Law School. The Journal extends its most appreciative thanks to Professor Smolla for all his help.

In this Article, Professor Smolla examines the right to free speech in the context of Black v. Commonwealth, a case …

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

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence almost exclusively prohibits laws restricting freedom of speech based on the content of the speech. In this Article, Professor Steven Heyman takes exception to the content neutrality doctrine, arguing that its strict application both minimizes other interests competing with speech and fails to elevate the premises on which the First Amendment stands.

Antebellum Perspectives On Free Speech, Mark A. Graber

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In his book, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History, Professor Michael Kent Curtis documents the political struggles over free speech rights that took place between the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Professor Curtis looks to these early free speech fights to help define the contours of contemporary speech rights. In this review, Professor Mark A. Graber discusses Professor Curtis's contribution to constitutional history, and the implications of The People's Darling Privilege for constitutional theorists

Speech, Press, And Democracy, Paul Finkelman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Professor Michael Kent Curtis's latest book, Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History, chronicles the efforts of ordinary Americans to protect their right to freedom of expression from 1791-1865. Professor Paul Finkelman reviews this book, focusing primarily on Curtis's discussions of suppression of speech prior to and during the Civil War period and additionally providing some thoughts concerning the appropriateness of revoking free speech rights during times of war.

The Idea Of Public Reason Resuscitated, James P. Madigan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this Article, James Madigan examines the role of public reason in a democratic government, including what views should play a role in determining public reason. Madigan criticizes John Rawls for including comprehensive views in constitutional debates, and argues that only reasons grounded in political values should be used when debating constitutional issues and fundamental rights.

The Rhetoric Of Judicial Critique: From Judicial Restraint To The Virtual Bill Of Rights, Michael J. Gerhardt

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Professor Michael Gerhardt traces the rhetoric employed by national leaders and commentators over the past century to describe popular conceptions of the judicial function. In particular, Professor Gerhardt examines the evolution of the terminology used in popular and political rhetoric, revealing their inconsistent application to political ideologies through time. Professor Gerhardt argues that such shifts in usage correspond with transfers of power between the political authorities controlling the central interests at stake in constitutional adjudication. Professor Gerhardt applies the shortcomings of traditional political rhetoric to the issues surrounding technological advancements, concluding that the proper treatment of technology by the Supreme …

The Business Of Expression: Economic Liberty, Political Factions And The Forgotten First Amendment Legacy Of Justice George Sutherland, Samuel R. Olken

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In The Business of Expression: Economic Liberty, Political Factions And The Forgotten First Amendment Legacy of Justice George Sutherland, Samuel Olken traces the dichotomy that emerged in constitutional law in the aftermath of the Lochner era between economic liberty and freedom of expression. During the 1930s, while a deeply divided United States Supreme Court adopted a laissez faire approach to economic regulation, it viewed with great suspicion laws that restricted the manner and content of expression. During this period, Justice George Sutherland often clashed with the majority consistently insisting that state regulation of private economic rights bear a close and …

The Constitution And The Other Constitution, Michael Kent Curtis

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In this article, Professor Michael Kent Curtis examines how laws that shape the distribution of wealth intersect with and affect popular sovereignty and free speech and press. He presents this discussion in the context of the effect of the Other Constitution on The Constitution. Professor Curtis begins by taking a close-up look at the current campaign finance system and the concentration of media ownership in a few corporate bodies and argues that both affect the way in which various political issues are presented to the public, if at all. Professor Curtis continues by talking about the origins of our constitutional …

Assessing The Legitimacy Of Governmental Regulation Of Modern Speech Aimed At Social Reform: The Importance Of Hindsight And Causation, Kenneth J. Brown

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When governmental regulation or punishment of speech occurs subsequent to the speech itself, such regulation is conducted with the benefit of hindsight. This is important because hindsight enables us to discern whether the expression in question has caused any legally cognizable harm. When speech is responsible for such a harm, its punishment is justfied by this causal connection. Yet conversely, when we know that speech is consequence-free, its ex post punishment is conceptually indefensible. In the first part of this article, Mr. Brown criticizes the imminent lawless action standard articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio for failing to embrace fully this …

Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act Of 2000: The Land Use Provisions Are Both Unconstitutional And Unnecessary, Ada-Marie Walsh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 was Congress 'response to the Supreme Court's striking down of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in City of Boerne v. Flores. In promulgating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Congress, inter alia, sought to protect the free exercise of religion from excessive governmental meddling while remedying discrimination suffered by religious individuals and groups in the area of land use. In dealing solely with land use provisions of the RLUIPA, the author argues that the Religious Land Use and lnstitutionalized Person Act is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment …

Religion, Rationality, And Special Treatment, Jane Rutherford

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Religion has always played a major role in American society, both politically and socially. Its influence on the Constitution is expressed in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Why is religion given special treatment by the Constitution? In this Article, Professor Jane Rutherford makes a structural argument for religious liberty. Rutherford posits that religion is treated differently not because of the content of its views, but because of the various other functions it serves, such as providing voices for outsiders and advancing non-market values. Rutherford concludes that we should return to more serious enforcement of the Establishment and Free Exercise …

Protecting The Cellular Citizen-Critic: The State Of Political Speech From Sullivan To Popa, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The 1999federal appellate court decision of United States v. Popa suggests the startling emergence of a nascent First Amendment right to engage in anonymous and racist telephonic harassment of government officials. Professor Calvert suggests that this decision sadly reflects the state of political discourse in the United States today, namely a dialectical free-for-all directly contrary to the vision of philosopher-educator Alexander Meiklejohn, a vision advanced by the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan but rejected by the shout-and- attack cultures of cable news channel political talk shows and call-in radio programs. The Popa decision also …

Student Division Symposium Sponsored By The Institute Of The Bill Of Rights Law: Policing Obscenity And Pornography In An Online World, Ann Beeson, Deirdre Mulligan, Bruce Taylor, Bruce Watson, Jonathan Zittrain

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Two Degrees Of Speech Protection: Free Speech Through The Prism Of Agricultural Disparagement Laws, Harold M. Wasserman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In the wake of a 1989 national television broadcast reporting the alleged cancer risk of a chemical applied to apples on trees, many states passed agricultural product disparagement (APD) statutes. These statutes grant civil causes of action to the growers and sellers of perishable food products, against anyone who speaks negatively or disparagingly, without basis in scientific evidence, about the product's safety. In this Article, Howard M Wasserman explores the interplay between the APD statutes and the First Amendment. First, Mr. Wasserman discusses the three categories of restrictions on the freedom of speech, focusing primarily on private civil tort actions …

Commercial Slogans: The First Amendment Should Shield Their Use In Campaign Speech, Raena L. Smith

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Commercial slogans and trademarks are increasingly finding their way into every aspect of the American vernacular, including speech by political officials and candidates. A previous published Note in the Journal of Law and Politics has argued that such speech should be restricted as it infringes upon the copyright or trademark holder's rights established both under federal and state law. This Note takes the opposing view, arguing that, even if campaign speech falls under the purview of federal or state statutes, the First Amendment prevents the application of laws to restrict campaign speech.

The Unusual Suspects: Journalists As Thieves, William E. Lee

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The publication of confidential information by the press stands in stark contrast to the press' dedication to protecting the confidentiality of sources. While the Supreme Court has taken the position that the press may publish confidential information acquired through "routine" newsgathering methods, the contours of the phrase "routine " newsgathering methods are poorly defined In this Article, Professor Lee describes the link between the manner in which information is obtained and the First Amendment's protection of the publication of the information. He concludes that the proper analysis would separate the interests affected by publication from the interests affected by illegal …

The Hatefulness Of Protected Speech: A Comparison Of The American And European Approaches, Sionaidh Douglas-Scott

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In its First Amendment jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court has construed very broadly the constitutional protection of free speech. Similarly democratic governments in Europe, however, have adopted laws restricting certain types of speech-particularly hate speech-based on the view that the human rights of oppressed groups cannot be protected fully if hate speech is permitted In this provocative Article, Professor Douglas-Scott briefly examines the American approach and contrasts it with the rationale underpinning European, especially German, law. Focusing on hate speech and the denial of the Holocaust voiced largely by neo-Nazi and other right-wing groups, she argues that such speech …

The Moral Failure Of The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The clear and present danger test has been used for almost a century to determine the speech the government may restrain. This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent lawless action. Professor Dow suggests that the clear and present danger test protects too little speech. He posits that speech should be protected unless the following three conditions are met: (1) the speaker's specific intent in uttering the words …

Justice Or Injustice For The Poor?: A Look At The Constitutionality Of Congressional Restrictions On Legal Services, J. Dwight Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon enacting the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to grantees that perform legal services for low-income individuals. In recent years, Congress has enacted restrictions upon grantees' receipt of such federal funding, limiting the legal services these legal aid attorneys can provide to their clients. This move has sparked great debate. Proponents of the restrictions argue that they are needed to correct abuse and misuse of the legal services program, while opponents argue that the restrictions only harm low-income individuals.

In this Note, the author addresses this controversial issue …

Murder In The Abstract: The First Amendment And The Misappropriation Of Brandenburg, Amy K. Dilworth

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When Paladin Enterprises published Hit Man, a manual about murder for hire, it knew and intended that the book would be used for such a purpose. When James Perry used the information contained in Hit Man to murder three innocent persons, he started a legal debate about the scope of First Amendment protections for books that instruct how to commit criminal acts. Many scholars and commentators indicated that Brandenburg v. Ohio contains the applicable constitutional standard; however, in litigation against Paladin, the survivors of the decedents challenged the conventional wisdom.

This Note examines the Brandenburg test for its applicability to …

Board Of County Commissioners V. Umbehr: The Inadequacies Of Extending Pickering Analysis To Government Contractors, Luther D. Tupponce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note challenges the restrictive First Amendment free speech protection that the Supreme Court gave to government contractors in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr when it applied the Pickering balancing test, developed nearly thirty years ago in Pickering v. Board of Education in the context of government employees. It does so by first questioning whether the First Amendment free speech protections given to government employees should be similar for government contractors. It then explores whether the Pickering balancing test should be applied to cases involving government contractors as it was in Umbehr.

The author concludes that the Court improperly …

Tainted Sources: First Amendment Rights And Journalistic Wrongs, Robert M. O'Neil

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The issue of news organizations' potential liability for their newsgathering practices has garnered significant attention in several recent cases. Robert M. O'Neil discusses several such cases which have focused on the balance between the First Amendment interests at stake and the improper or possibly illegal manner in which the media obtained its information. The author concludes by suggesting principles to guide in balancing these interests

The Constitutional Interest In Getting The News: Toward A First Amendment Protection From Tort Liability For Surreptitious Newsgathering, Paul A. Lebel

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Association, Advocacy, And The First Amendment, Victor Brudney

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Constitutionality Of Lobby Reform: Implicating Associational Privacy And The Right To Petition The Government, Steven A. Browne

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Lobbyists currently are required to register and report to the United States Congress under the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act of 1946. Because of poor draftsmanship, the 1946 Act actually covers few lobbyists and is not enforced by the federal government. One recent federal bill attempts to reform lobbying registration by addressing the inadequacies of the current law. If enacted, this bill might be challenged as an impediment to First Amendment rights. Any attempt at lobby reform implicates the First Amendment right to petition the government and the right of associational privacy. These issues have been analyzed by state and …