First Amendment Commons^™

A Balanced Diet Of First Amendment Cases, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compelled Commercial Speech, Robert Post

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Solicitors' Right To Advertise: A Historical And Comparative Analysis, M. Catherine Harris

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach To Facts, Opinions, And The First Amendment, Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

This essay offers an empirical approach to the problem, rooted in an argument that the underlying rationale for the fact/opinion distinction in compelled speech doctrine tells us something about how this distinction should be policed. Commercial speech enjoys protection by virtue of its value to listeners, it is from the listener's vantage point, then, that courts should assess whether a compelled disclosure is fact or opinion. And if we are interested in learning how disclosures will affect listeners, we might try asking them, just as courts adjudicating trademark suits frequently use consumer surveys to determine how customers understand the meaning …

How Do We Know When Speech Is Of Low Value?, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Robert Bork & Commercial Speech, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Before he redefined antitrust, Judge Robert Bork took aim at the First Amendment. Though his work in this area was not nearly as influential, it received substantial attention, particularly after President Ronald Reagan nominated Judge Bork to replace Justice Lewis Powell on the Supreme Court in 1987. Judge Bork's 1971 article, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems challenged the prevailing wisdom on the proper scope of First Amendment protections. In this article, published seven years before The Antitrust Paradox, Bork maintained that only "explicitly political" speech warranted constitutional protection. Other types of speech or expression, including much indisputably …

A Disclosure-Focused Approach To Compelled Commercial Speech, Andrew C. Budzinski

Michigan Law Review

In 2010, the Food and Drug Administration passed a rule revising compelled disclaimers on tobacco products pursuant to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The rule required that tobacco warnings include something new: all tobacco products now had to bear one of nine graphic images to accompany the text. Tobacco companies filed suit contesting the constitutionality of the rule, arguing that the government violated their right to free commercial speech by compelling disclosure of the graphic content. Yet First Amendment jurisprudence lacks a doctrinally consistent standard for reviewing such compelled disclosures. Courts’ analyses typically depend on whether the …

Compelled Commercial Speech As Compelled Consent Speech, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles

No abstract provided.

Commercial Speech In Crisis: Crisis Pregnancy Center Regulations And Definitions Of Commercial Speech, Kathryn E. Gilbert

Michigan Law Review

Recent attempts to regulate Crisis Pregnancy Centers, pseudoclinics that surreptitiously aim to dissuade pregnant women from choosing abortion, have confronted the thorny problem of how to define commercial speech. The Supreme Court has offered three potential answers to this definitional quandary. This Note uses the Crisis Pregnancy Center cases to demonstrate that courts should use one of these solutions, the factor-based approach of Bolger v. Youngs Drugs Products Corp., to define commercial speech in the Crisis Pregnancy Center cases and elsewhere. In principle and in application, the Bolger factor-based approach succeeds in structuring commercial speech analysis at the margins of …

Mapping The Forms Of Expressive Association, Randall P. Bezanson, Sheila A. Bentzen, C. Michael Judd

Pepperdine Law Review

Freedom of expressive association is a relatively new right under the First Amendment, and as a result, its key definitional aspects are continually in flux. Scholarship to- date focuses on the Supreme Court’s treatment of expressive associations, but because the Court has never truly defined what an expressive association is, the Scholarship also fails to really define the boundaries and characteristics of an expressive association. This Article begins to fill this gap in the literature and takes on the task of “mapping” the forms of expressive association. Our goal is to begin the organizing, defining, and classifying task by identifying …

The North Carolina Woman’S Right To Know Act: An Unconstitutional Infringement On A Physician’S First Amendment Right To Free Speech, Ryan Bakelaar

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

The North Carolina Woman’s Right to Know Act represents the crossroads of the Supreme Court’s First Amendment, informed consent, and abortion-related jurisprudence. The Act requires physicians to perform an obstetric ultrasound, verbally convey specific information regarding ultrasonographic findings, and communicate a host of other information to patients seeking abortions. The purported goal of the Act is to ensure that physicians obtain appropriate informed consent from such patients. By compelling a physician to convey this information, the State violates the physician’s First Amendment rights. Indeed, the State may not compel an individual to convey the State’s ideological message. Further, any statute …

Do Graphic Tobacco Warnings Violate The First Amendment?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

When Congress passed the nation’s first comprehensive tobacco bill in 2009, it replaced the familiar Surgeon General’s warnings, last updated in 1984, with nine blunter warnings. The law also directed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ('FDA') to require color graphics to accompany the textual warnings. By law, the warnings would cover the top fifty percent of the front and back of tobacco packaging and the top twenty percent of print advertisements, bringing the United States closer to many peer countries that now require graphic warnings. Tobacco companies challenged the requirement on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the compelled disclosures …

Machine Speech, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

Computers are making an increasing number of important decisions in our lives. They fly airplanes, navigate traffic, and even recommend books. In the process, computers reason through automated algorithms and constantly send and receive information, sometimes in ways that mimic human expression. When can such communications, called here “algorithmic outputs,” claim First Amendment protection?

Building The House On A Weak Foundation: Edenfield V. Fane And The Current State Of The Commercial Speech Doctrine, Dennis William Bishop

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Crazy Horse Malt Liquor Case: From Tradition To Modernity And Halfway Back (Part Iii Of South Dakota Law Review Trilogy), Frank Pommersheim

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Educational Media Company At Virginia Tech, Inc. V. Swecker: First Amendment Lite Waters Down Commercial Speech Protection, Justin A. Redd

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General Of Vermont, Et Al. V. Ims Health Inc., Et Al. - Amicus Brief In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin Outterson, David Orentlicher, Christopher T. Robertson, Frank A. Pasquale

Faculty Scholarship

On April 26, 2011, the US Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Vermont data mining case, Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. Respondents claim this is the most important commercial speech case in a decade. Petitioner (the State of Vermont) argues this is the most important medical privacy case since Whalen v. Roe.

The is an amicus brief supporting Vermont, written by law professors and submitted on behalf of the New England Journal of Medicine

Can Speech By Fda-Regulated Firms Ever Be Noncommercial?, Nathan Cortez

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article considers whether speech by pharmaceutical, medical device, and other FDA-regulated companies can ever be noncommercial and thus subject to heightened protection under the First Amendment. Since the U.S. Supreme Court first recognized a right to commercial speech in 1976, there have been 24 published federal judicial opinions in which an FDA-regulated firm has argued that its speech was protected. Courts have categorized the speech as commercial in all but two cases, neither of which involved FDA rules or enforcement.

I examine the tests and factors courts claim they use when making this threshold distinction, then identify the various …

Symposium On Commercial Speech And Public Health, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Does the constitutional protection of commercial speech impair the government's ability to protect and promote public health? Or does the commercial speech doctrine itself enhance consumer education and harness market competition to advance public health? Do First Amendment limitations on regulation of commercial messages unduly retard governmental efforts to safeguard consumers? Or do they properly constrain illiberal paternalism? If the Court has been over-protective of health-related commercial speech, is there a principled place to redraw the line? And how should those governmental agencies entrusted with the power to protect public health and welfare respond to these constitutional constraints?

The editors …

Citizens United And The Threat To The Regulatory State, Tamara R. Piety

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Although Citizens United has been roundly criticized for its potential effect on elections and its display of judicial immodesty (or "activism"), the effect of the case which may be both most profound and perhaps most pernicious is its effect on the commercial speech doctrine. This is an aspect of the case which has been largely overlooked. Most people seem to be unaware of any connection between election law and the commercial speech doctrine-except, that is, those who have been working long and hard to accomplish the change it foreshadows. They are keenly aware of its implications.

Building A 'New Institutional' Approach To Corporate Speech, Michael R. Siebecker

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This Article represents the second installment in a three-part series designed to articulate a New Institutional approach to corporate speech that could foil the otherwise inevitable collision between the commercial speech doctrine and the Supreme Court's disparate approach to corporate political speech.

The problem arises because corporations are attempting to escape regulation or liability in a variety of settings by investing commercial messages with just enough political content to render the amalgam of politically tinged corporate speech fully protected under the First Amendment. Why would this strategy work? If corporate speech is political, existing Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that government …

Mixed Speech: When Speech Is Both Private And Governmental, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

Speech is generally considered to be either private or governmental, and this dichotomy is embedded in First Amendment jurisprudence. However, speech is often neither purely private nor purely governmental but rather a combination of the two. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not yet recognized mixed speech as a distinct category of speech. This Article suggests considerations for identifying mixed speech and exposes the shortcomings of the current approach of classifying all speech as either private or governmental when determining whether viewpoint restrictions pass First Amendment muster. Treating mixed speech as government speech gives short shrift to the free speech interests …

Prediction Markets And The First Amendment, Miriam A. Cherry, Robert L. Rogers

Faculty Publications

The continuing development of prediction markets is important because of their success in foretelling the future in politics, economics, and science. In this article, we identify the expressive elements inherent in prediction markets and explore how legislation such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 might harm such predictive speech. This article is the first to explore First Amendment protections for prediction markets in such depth, and in so doing, we distinguish prediction markets from other regulated areas such as gambling, commodities, and securities trading. The article’s examination of prediction markets also illustrates the limitations of current commercial …

Thoughts On Commercial Speech: A Roundtable Discussion, Ronald K.L. Collins, Steven H. Shiffrin, Erwin Chemerinsky, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Adam Liptak, the legal affairs writer for The New York Times, moderates a lively discussion about commercial speech between three esteemed constitutional scholars: Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law; Professor Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School; and Professor Steve Shiffrin of Cornell Law School. These scholars debate the proper definition of defining commercial speech, how the corporate identity of a speaker and the content of the speech determines the level of First Amendment protection, whether it is possible to demarcate commercial speech from political speech, and the problems of paternalism and viewpoint discrimination in this complex and …

Second Class For The Second Time: How The Commercial Speech Doctrine Stigmatizes Commercial Use Of Aggregated Public Records, Brian N. Larson, Genelle I. Belmas

Faculty Scholarship

This Article argues that access to aggregated electronic public records for commercial use should receive protection under the First Amendment in the same measure as the speech acts the access supports. In other words, we view commercial access to aggregated public records as an essential means to valuable speech. For many, however, the taint of the commercial speech doctrine is turning all “information flows” into commercial ones. This, in turn, is threatening the access to government records.

It Depends On What The Meaning Of "False" Is: Falsity And Misleadingness In Commercial Speech Doctrine, Rebecca Tushnet

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

While scholarship regarding the Supreme Court's noncommercial speech doctrine has often focused on the level of protection for truthful, non-misleading commercial speech, scholars have paid little attention to the exclusion of false or misleading commercial speech from all First Amendment protection. Examining the underpinnings of the false and misleading speech exclusion illuminates the practical difficulties that abolishing the commercial speech doctrine would pose. Through a series of fact patterns in trademark and false advertising cases, this piece demonstrates that defining what is false or misleading is often debatable. If commercial speech were given First Amendment protection, consumer protection and First …

Lawyer Advertising And The Dignity Of The Profession, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

None available.

Corporate Speech, Securities Regulation, And An Institutional Approach To The First Amendment, Michael R. Siebecker

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Does the First Amendment shield politically tinged corporate speech from the compelled disclosure and reporting requirements embedded in the U.S. securities laws? The question arises in the securities regulation context because of an impending jurisprudential train wreck between the Supreme Court's commercial speech doctrine and its approach to corporate political speech. As corporations begin mixing commercial messages with political commentary, First Amendment jurisprudence simply provides insufficient guidance on the role government should play in regulating that speech. Although First Amendment jurisprudence generally counsels against governmental restrictions on corporate political speech without regard to the truth or falsity of the message, …

Scylla Or Charybdis: Navigating The Jurisprudence Of Visual Clutter, Ryan Calo

Articles

State and local governments seeking to address the proliferation of billboards and other outdoor advertising must negotiate two obstacles of First Amendment law. The first is the Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego. Following Metromedia, regulators can neither select among noncommercial messages nor privilege commercial messages over noncommercial ones. For years, regulators navigated around Metromedia by drawing a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. Then came the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, holding that regulators had to account for why they were privileging noncommercial over commercial …

Free The Fortune 500! The Debate Over Corporate Speech And The First Amendment, Rodney A. Smolla

Scholarly Articles

Examines the lessons to be learned in the U.S. Supreme Court landmark free speech case in "Nike Inc. v. Kasky".