First Amendment Commons^™

Applying Militant Democracy To Defend Against Social Media Harms, Neil Netanel

Cardozo Law Review

Social media inflict multiple harms on liberal democracy. Online platforms thrive on propagating emotionally inflammatory content that maximizes user engagement. Too often that entails amplifying disinformation, hate speech, online extremism, and deep-seated partisan animosity. Tellingly, as documented in testimony before the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, in the weeks following the 2020 presidential election, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Reddit knowingly enabled a firestorm of vitriolic far-right election denial on their platforms. In so doing, a Select Committee staff report concludes, the platforms “helped to facilitate the attack on January 6th.”

No Bullying Allowed Here: Adopting A Misuse Doctrine To Defeat Trademark Bullies, Jessica Shechtman

Cardozo Law Review

In order to maintain trademark rights, trademark owners are encouraged to enforce and police their trademarks through civil actions. Enforcing trademark rights is encouraged and incentivized by the Lanham Act because failure to do so may result in harsh consequences for trademark owners. Some of these consequences include weakening of strength or abandonment of the mark, which may result in loss of trademark rights. However, large companies go above and beyond to police and protect their trademarks. At times, this overenforcement is unethical and crosses a fine line between following the law and abusing the law, causing a number of …

What Twenty-First-Century Free Speech Law Means For Securities Regulation, Helen Norton

Notre Dame Law Review

Securities law has long regulated securities-related speech—and until recently, it did so with little, if any, First Amendment controversy. Yet the antiregulatory turn in the Supreme Court’s twenty-first-century Free Speech Clause doctrine has inspired corporate speakers’ increasingly successful efforts to resist regulation in a variety of settings, settings that now include securities law. This doctrinal turn empowers courts, if they so choose, to dismantle the securities regulation framework in place since the Great Depression. At stake are not only recent governmental proposals to require companies to disclose accurate information about their vulnerabilities to climate change and other emerging risks, but …

Intervenor St. Isidore Of Seville Catholic Virtual School's Brief In Response To Petitioner's Application And Petition, Michael H. Mcginley, Steven A. Engel, M. Scott Proctor, John A. Meiser, Michael R. Perri, Socorro Adams Dooley

Court Briefs

No. MA-121694
Gentner Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

From the Arguments and Authorities

The Petition fails on the merits. Nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the State from contracting with a religious school to provide new educational opportunities. And any state law purporting to do so would violate ORFA and the First Amendment.

St. Isidore Of Seville Catholic Virtual School's Motion To Intervene, Michael H. Mcginley, Steven A. Engel, M. Scott Proctor, John A. Meiser, Michael R. Perri, Socorro Adams Dooley

Court Briefs

No. 121694
Gentner Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

From the Argument and Authority

This Motion to Intervene is both timely and amply supported. Courts assess the timeliness of a motion to intervene "in light of all the circumstances," including "the length of time since the movant knew of its interests in the case; prejudice to the existing parties; prejudice to the movant; and the existence of any unusual circumstances." Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 2011 OK 57, ¶ 31, 270 P.3d 113, 128 (citation omitted) (looking to federal case law for guidance). Courts have …

The End Of An Era: The Uncertain Future Of Section 230 Immunity For Social Media Platforms, Lillian H. Rucker

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Major social media platforms (SMPs), such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, have become the primary means of communication for billions of people worldwide. They are the largest modern news distributors and the primary curators of online public discourse. However, the expanding influence of SMPs has led many to publicly scrutinize the content moderation decisions of such platforms, as SMPs regularly remove, block, censor, and ban user-generated content (UGC), including third-party written messages, photos, and videos, at their discretion. Because SMPs exercise immense power and are largely self-regulated, there has been growing public sentiment that SMP content moderation violates Users’ free …

The News Media Engagement Principle: Why Social Media Has Not Actually Overrun The Limited Purpose Public Figure Category, Zachary R. Cormier

University of Miami Law Review

Has the rise of social media ruined the limited purpose public figure category of the First Amendment’s actual malice privilege? Justice Gorsuch believes so—and he has recently invited courts to get rid of it. He argues that the category now includes vast numbers of otherwise private citizens that have “become ‘public figures’ on social media overnight.” With so many people qualifying as limited purpose public figures (and having to overcome the actual malice standard to prevail on a defamation claim), he claims that the category has evolved to provide an unjustified shield for the masses of misinformation-peddlers on social media. …

For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen

University of Miami Law Review

Freedom of speech is, unsurprisingly, foundational to the “land of the free.” However, the “land of the free” has undergone some changes since the First Amendment’s ratification. Unprecedented technological evolution has ushered in a digital forum in which the volume, speed, and reach of words transcend the Framers’ visions of the First Amendment’s aims. Social media platforms have become central spaces for public discourse, where opportunities to create—and repress—speech are endless. From enabling individuals to freely express their views, to allowing state actors to limit open exchanges, it is about time that the Supreme Court tackles this complex issue of …

Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Navigating Campaign Finance Reform Through Publicly Funded Elections On The Local Level, Emily Bernstein

Cardozo Law Review

Despite the Constitution’s silence on the issue of campaign finance, the Supreme Court has had a considerable hand in shaping the campaign finance regulatory structure of the United States. There are countless criticisms of the campaign finance system the Court has constructed. On the one hand, some scholars stipulate that, though they are critical of the system, it is an intelligible “product” of the Constitution. On the other hand, others argue that the “vision of democracy” portrayed in money-in-politics decisions is not faithful to the Constitution.

Policing Protest: Speech, Space, Crime, And The Jury, Jenny E. Carroll

Faculty Scholarship

Speech is more than just an individual right—it can serve as a catalyst for democratically driven revolution and reform, particularly for minority or marginalized positions. In the past decade, the nation has experienced a rise in mass protests. However, dissent and disobedience in the form of such protests is not without consequences. While the First Amendment promises broad rights of speech and assembly, these rights are not absolute. Criminal law regularly curtails such rights—either by directly regulating speech as speech or by imposing incidental burdens on speech as it seeks to promote other state interests. This Feature examines how criminal …

Constitutional Law—Filling The Gap: The Need For Legislative Action To Protect The Right To Record Police In The Age Of Citizen Journalism, Madalyn J. Goolsby

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Eugene Volokh, Richard W. Garnett, & Michael Stokes Paulsen In Support Of Petitioner, Brian D. Schmalzbach, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 23-74
Debra A. Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, New York

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Even many steadfast supporters of abortion rights believed that the Court erroneously applied the First Amendment in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). As put bluntly by leading liberal scholar Professor Laurence Tribe, Hill was among the candidates for “most blatantly erroneous” decisions of the 1999 Term. Tribe added that the case was “slam- dunk simple” yet the Court got it “slam-dunk wrong.”

Pro-choice …

Fair Use Failing The First Amendment? How The Parody And Satire Dichotomy May Be Stunting Political Discourse, Megan L. Wheeler

IP Theory

The First Amendment, in certain circumstances, is used as a defense to “protect[] satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression.”2 When it comes to jokes, “[q]uestions . . . have arisen in case law [pertaining to satire typically] concerning libel, emotional distress and copyright infringement.”3 Further, in a right of publicity claim, “[t]he First Amendment clearly protects all but the most intrusive coverage of news, or details of a person’s private life, such as are reported in the tabloid press or talk shows.”4 This demonstrates that humor and satire have a close relationship with the First …

(E)Racing Speech In School, Francesca L. Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Speech on race and racism in our nation’s public schools is under attack for partisan gain. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment teaches a lot about the wisdom and legality of laws that chill such speech in the classroom. But more importantly, a First Amendment analysis of these laws reveals profound insights about the health and meaning of our free speech doctrine.

Through a First Amendment analysis of “anti-critical race theory” laws, this essay illuminates the first principles of free speech law. Specifically, it shows that the First Amendment offers little refuge to teachers or parents looking to …

Where To Place The “Nones” In The Church And State Debate? Empirical Evidence From Establishment Clause Cases In Federal Court, Gregory C. Sisk, Michael Heise

St. John's Law Review

In this third iteration of our ongoing empirical examination of religious liberty decisions in the lower federal courts, we studied all digested Establishment Clause decisions by federal circuit and district court judges from 2006 through 2015. The first clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution directs that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That provision has generated decades of controversy regarding the appropriate role of religion in public life.

Holding key variables constant, we found that Catholic judges approved Establishment Clause claims at a 29.6% rate, compared with a 41.5% rate before non-Catholic …

Disinformation And The First Amendment: Fraud On The Public, Wes Henricksen

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Following the 2020 presidential election, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, along with most of the Republican Party, spread the false claim that the election had been stolen by Democrats. Joe Biden, so the claim went, had not been legitimately elected, and was therefore an illegitimate President and needed to be removed. This profitable falsehood6 became known as the “Big Lie.” It was not only baseless, but it was in fact made in spite of and in direct conflict with the overwhelming evidence debunking it. This did not stop people from believing it. Millions bought into the Big Lie, which …

The End Of Government Speech, G. Alex Sinha

Cardozo Law Review

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court created the government-speech doctrine to protect certain forms of government action against First Amendment challenges. The government must speak to govern, the thinking goes, and the First Amendment regulates private rather than governmental speech. Therefore, government action that is classified as “government speech” should not be vulnerable to free-speech claims. The doctrine has since been used accordingly, vaccinating certain government programs against the First Amendment. For example, the doctrine has insulated regulations banning federally funded medical providers from counseling patients about abortion; advertising campaigns spearheaded by the federal government; state-level choices about which specialty …

Brief Of Professor Derek T. Muller As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petition For Certiorari, Michael Francisco, Michael Brody, Derek T. Muller

Court Briefs

No. 22-1033
Eugene Mazo v. New Jersey Secretary of State

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This Court has expressly held that the Anderson-Burdick balancing test for evaluating certain kinds of election laws does not extend to cases of pure political speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 344 (1995). Laws restricting political speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Nevertheless, lower courts—including the Third Circuit in this case— continue to defy this Court’s guidance.

This case presents an important opportunity to …

Appellant's Opening Brief, Zack Greenamyre, W. Gerald Weber, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 23-10332
Rev. Stephen Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk County

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia No. 4:20-cv-00002-MLB

From the Summary of the Argument

This is an unusual appeal. Sheriff Johnny Moats and Chief Jailer Al Sharp all but admitted that they retaliated against Jarrard and barred him from Polk County Jail’s volunteer ministry program because they disagree with his religious belief that baptism is required for salvation. Indeed, Moats told Jarrard in writing that Jarrard’s beliefs are “contrary to the teaching of the Bible” and that he would not be allowed to …

Texas’ War On Social Media: Censorship Or False Flag, Leni Morales

DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Junk Food Problem: Why The Law Allows Advertising To Kids And How To Implement Change, Makenna Hardy, Madison Maloney

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Rapid technological advancements have increased the methods in which advertisers can reach the public, specifically children. As obesity rates increase among America’s youth, more stringent advertising laws barring junk food exposure have been advocated for. Since the Supreme Court has determined commercial free speech as deserving full First Amendment coverage, the rights of advertisers frequently inhibit productive methods of protecting children from junk food advertisements. This article examines the current standards safeguarding both children and advertisers and the feasibility of restricting advertising to kids within the limitations of commercial speech protections.

Confidentiality Over Privacy, Stacey A. Tovino

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public School Teachers Who Refuse To Use Preferred Names And Pronouns: A Brief Exploration Of The First Amendment Limitations In K-12 Classrooms, Suzanne Eckes

ConLawNOW

This article focuses on whether a teacher has a First Amendment right under both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution when refusing to use a student’s preferred name or pronoun in a public school classroom. The article begins by briefly summarizing a recent case from Kansas and then examines prior precedent involving teachers’ classroom speech and teachers’ rights to freely exercise their religious rights in public schools. It then briefly highlights how these issues have been addressed in previous pronoun cases and concludes with a discussion of related constitutional issues.

Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Pepperdine Law Review

While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …

Freedom Of Algorithmic Expression, Inyoung Cheong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Can content moderation on social media be considered a form of speech? If so, would government regulation of content moderation violate the First Amendment? These are the main arguments of social media companies after Florida and Texas legislators attempted to restrict social media platforms’ authority to de-platform objectionable content.

This article examines whether social media companies’ arguments have valid legal grounds. To this end, the article proposes three elements to determine that algorithms classify as “speech:” (1) the algorithms are designed to communicate messages; (2) the relevant messages reflect cognitive or emotive ideas beyond mere operational matters; and (3) they …

Brief Of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 22-741
Faith Bible Chapel International v. Gregory Tucker

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment demands that courts refrain from intruding into disputes over a religious organization’s selection of important leaders. The ministerial exception enforces that demand. And thus, nearly every court to consider the issue has agreed: the ministerial exception promises something akin to an immunity from suit, which must be resolved early in litigation to be effective.

Warren/Burger Courts Exalted “Free” Expression Over Other American Values, Louis W. Hensler Iii

Marquette Law Review

Anglo-American defamation law started with a simple condemnation of the sin of evil speaking. Eventually, this value condemning harmful speech was accommodated to the value of speaking the truth, even hurtful truth. A third value of fostering responsible self-government was injected into American defamation law at and around the time of the American Revolution. This value makes it especially important for citizens to freely speak even hurtful truth about their government.