First Amendment Commons^™

Hate Wins, Courtney Lauren Anderson

Loyola University Chicago Law Journal

The controversy surrounding the conflict between hate crimes and the First Amendment makes the task of even defining hate crimes difficult. Actions that some find prejudicial are simply expressive to others. This diversion obstructs efforts to collect data on hate crimes and deploy a unified legal or prosecutorial response. The antidiscrimination purpose of the Fair Housing Act is known, despite questions surrounding the Act’s breadth, and the inconsistent prioritization and interpretation of the Act that comes with changing the person who holds the position of the Secretary of the Office of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This paper sets forth …

Some First Amendment Implications Of The Trademark Registration Decisions, Marc Rohr

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

No abstract provided.

Trade Secrets And The Right To Information: A Comparative Analysis Of E.U. And U.S. Approaches To Freedom Of Expression And Whistleblowing, Sharon Sandeen, Ulla-Maija Mylly

Faculty Scholarship

Both the EU Trade Secrets Directive and US trade secret law seek to balance the protection of trade secrets against other values, including freedom of expression, but the EU Trade Secret Directive is more explicit about the need to do so. This article examines EU and US trade secret law through the right to information, a recognized human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and implementing laws and conventions. In particular, it discusses how principles of freedom of expression and whistleblowing should apply in the trade secret context in the EU and U.S.

Tinkering With Circuit Conflicts Beyond The Schoolhouse Gate, Stephen Wermiel

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

No abstract provided.

Robo-Bureaucrat And The Administrative Separation Of Powers, Matthew Seipel

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Essay argues that the administrative state's use of artificial intelligence (AI) creates concentrated, unchecked power at the agency leadership level. The Essay draws from Professor Jon Michaels' theory of the administrative separation of powers, and it describes how AI in government disrupts this separation. To alleviate this concern, the Essay puts forward one modest proposal: Congress should amend federal public sector labor law to require collective bargaining over an agency’s decision to use AI.

Lights, Camera, State Action: Manhattan Community Access Corp. V. Halleck, Graham L. Fisher

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

It is a well-established rule that constitutional constraints governing public entities do not extend to private actors—until they do. If this principle seems unclear, it is largely due to the piecemeal jurisprudence that defines the “state action” doctrine. This doctrine applies when courts hold that a private actor is subject to constitutional constraints by virtue of the quasi-public role they have willingly accepted. In these situations, constitutional protections—and the resulting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions—may be available to those who demand relief. While questions of what entails a “state action” loom in the face of closely intertwined private and public …

Church Taxes And The Original Understanding Of The Establishment Clause, Mark Storslee

Faculty Scholarship

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education, it has been widely assumed that the Establishment Clause forbids government from 'aiding' or subsidizing religious activity, especially religious schools. This Article suggests that this reading of the Establishment Clause rests on a misunderstanding of Founding-era history, especially the history surrounding to church taxes. Contrary to popular belief, the decisive argument against those taxes was not an unqualified assertion that subsidizing religion was prohibited. Rather, the crucial argument was that church taxes were a coerced religious observance: a government-mandated sacrifice to God, a tithe. Understanding that argument helps …

"Inciting A Riot": Silent Sentinels, Group Protests, And Prisoners' Petition And Associational Rights, Nicole B. Godfrey

Seattle University Law Review

This Article argues for increased legal protections for prisoners who choose to engage in group protest to shed light on the conditions of their incarceration. A companion piece to a similar article that focused on prisoner free speech rights, this Article uses the acts of protest utilized by the Silent Sentinels to examine why prisoners’ rights to petition and association should be strengthened. By strengthening these rights, the Article argues that we will advance the values enshrined by the First Amendment’s Petition Clause while simultaneously advancing the rights of the incarcerated millions with little to no political power.

The Article …

Public Official, Figures, And Controversies In Minnesota Defamation Law, Michael K. Steenson

Faculty Scholarship

In Minnesota, the plaintiff in a common law defamation claim is entitled to recover presumed damages in libel and slander per se cases. Those rules change when the First Amendment is injected into defamation cases when the plaintiff is a public official or figure or is a private person involved in a public controversy. A plaintiff who is a public official or figure must prove not only the elements of the common law defamation claim, but also that the defamatory communication was a false statement of fact and prove by clear and convincing evidence that it was made with actual …

Platforms And The Fall Of The Fourth Estate: Looking Beyond The First Amendment To Protect Watchdog Journalism, Erin C. Carroll

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech And Off-Label Rights, Amy J. Sepinwall

Georgia Law Review

When a litigant invokes a constitutional right to
protect interests different from the ones underpinning
the right, he engages in what this Article calls an
off-label rights exercise. The Free Speech Clause has
recently become an especially prominent, and troubling,
site of off-label rights exercises. Two of the most
prominent cases in the Supreme Court’s last term
involved litigants who invoked their constitutional
rights to free speech to protect interests unrelated to
speech or expression. In Janus v. American Federation
of State, County, & Municipal Employees, a state
employee argued that forcing him to pay for the union’s
bargaining activities …

Missing In “State Action”: Toward A Pluralist Conception Of The First Amendment, Moran Yemini

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Online speech intermediaries, particularly social platforms, have an enormous impact on internet users’ freedom of expression. They determine the speech rules for most of the content generated and information exchanged today and routinely interfere with users’ speech while enjoying practically unchecked power to block, filter, censor, manipulate, and surveil. Accordingly, our current system of free expression lacks one of the main requirements of a just system—the notion that no form of power is immune from the question of legitimacy. Scholarly responses to this situation tend to assign decreased weight to constitutional norms as means to impose duties on online intermediaries …

Reconsidering Thornton V. Caldor, Christopher C. Lund

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Dissent, Disagreement And Doctrinal Disarray: Free Expression And The Roberts Court In 2020, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

Using the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 rulings in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Nieves v. Bartlett, and Iancu v. Brunetti as analytical springboards, this Article explores multiple fractures among the Justices affecting the First Amendment freedoms of speech and press. All three cases involved dissents, with two cases each spawning five opinions. The clefts compound problems witnessed in 2018 with a pair of five-to-four decisions in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. Partisan divides, the Article argues, are only one problem with First Amendment …

Rescinding Admission Offers In Higher Education: The Clash Between Free Speech And Institutional Academic Freedom When Prospective Students' Racist Posts Are Exposed, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the tension between a prospective college student's First Amendment freedom of speech and a public university's unenumerated, inchoate right of institutional academic freedom. The friction between these interests was cast in high relief in 2020 when several schools confronted dual issues: (1) whether to rescind offers of admission to individuals who later were discovered to have engaged in offensive speech, and (2) whether revoking admission offers because of odious, hateful messages would violate the constitutional right of free expression. The Article argues that the right of institutional academic freedom-albeit maddeningly amorphous-encompasses a public institution's ability to choose …

Troll Storms And Tort Liability For Speech Urging Action By Others: A First Amendment Analysis And An Initial Step Toward A Federal Rule, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Commentary examines when, consistent with First Amendment principles of free expression, speakers can be held tortiously responsible for the actions of others with whom they have no contractual or employer-employee relationship. It argues that recent lawsuits against Daily Stormer publisher Andrew Anglin for sparking “troll storms” provide a timely analytical springboard into the issue of vicarious tort liability. Furthermore, such liability is particularly problematic when a speaker’s message urging action does not fall into an unprotected category of expression, such as incitement or true threats, and thus, were it not for tort law, would be fully protected. In examining …

Escaping Doctrinal Lockboxes In First Amendment Jurisprudence: Workarounds For Strict Scrutiny For Low-Value Speech In The Face Of Stevens And Reed, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court’s 2010 opinion in the crush-video case of United States v. Stevens made it extremely difficult to declare new varieties of low-value speech unprotected by the First Amendment. Five years later, the Court’s sign-ordinance ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert made it exceedingly tough for facially content-based regulations imposed on presumptively protected speech to be analyzed by any standard of judicial review less rigorous than the demanding strict scrutiny test. This Article examines how some courts today, despite being hemmed in by the strictures of both Stevens and Reed, are creatively unearthing novel ways to …

Section 230 Immunity: How The Trump Era Has Exposed The Current Conflict Between The First Amendment And The Good Samaritan Clause In The Modern Public Square, Brandon Salter, Dhillon Ramkhelawn

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Where Does It Fit? Solving The School Board Prayer Puzzle, Austin Reed

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—The Erosion Of Political Anonymity And Its Chilling Effect On Freedom Of Association: Reconsidering The Constitutionality Of The Mandated Public Disclosure Of Individuals’ Political Donations, Scout Snowden

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Law Of Obscenity In Comic Books, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fosta: A Necessary Step In Advancement Of The Women’S Rights Movement, Alexandra Sanchez

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speech Inequality After Janus V. Afscme, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

This Article explores the growing divide between the Roberts Court’s treatment of the free speech rights of wealthy individuals and corporations in campaign finance cases as compared to its treatment of the rights of public-sector labor unions and their members. First, it highlights some internal contradictions in the Janus Court’s analysis. Then, it discusses the growing—yet mostly ignored—divergence in the Court’s treatment of corporate and labor speakers with respect to the use of market influence to achieve political influence.

The Article has two Parts. In Part I, I explain how the Court reached its decision in Janus before critiquing the …

Platforms And The Fall Of The Fourth Estate: Looking Beyond The First Amendment To Protect Watchdog Journalism, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Journalists see the First Amendment as an amulet, and with good reason. It has long protected the Fourth Estate—an independent institutional press—in its exercise of editorial discretion to check government power. This protection helped the Fourth Estate flourish in the second half of the twentieth century and ably perform its constitutional watchdog role.

But in the last two decades, the media ecology has changed. The Fourth Estate has been subsumed by a Networked Press in which journalists are joined by engineers, algorithms, audience, and other human and non-human actors in creating and distributing news. The Networked Press’s most powerful members …

Discrimination, The Speech That Enables It, And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

Publications

Imagine that you’re interviewing for your dream job, only to be asked by the hiring committee whether you’re pregnant. Or HIV positive. Or Muslim. Does the First Amendment protect your interviewers’ inquiries from government regulation? This Article explores that question.

Antidiscrimination laws forbid employers, housing providers, insurers, lenders, and other gatekeepers from relying on certain characteristics in their decision-making. Many of these laws also regulate those actors’ speech by prohibiting them from inquiring about applicants’ protected class characteristics; these provisions seek to stop illegal discrimination before it occurs by preventing gatekeepers from eliciting information that would enable them to discriminate. …

Gillis V. Miller, Anna Tichy

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

From The Legal Literature: Criminalizing Propaganda: J. Remy Green’S Argument To Digitize Brandenburg, Francesca Laguardia

Department of Justice Studies Faculty Scholarship and Creative Works

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Traditionalism, Marc O. Degirolami

Faculty Publications

Traditionalist constitutional interpretation takes political and cultural practices of long age and duration as constituting the presumptive meaning of the text. This Essay probes traditionalism's conceptual and normative foundations. It focuses on the Supreme Court's traditionalist interpretation of the First Amendment to understand the distinctive justifications for traditionalism and the relationship between traditionalism and originalism. The first part of the Essay identifies and describes traditionalism in some of the Court's Speech and Religion Clause jurisprudence, highlighting its salience in the Court's recent Establishment Clause doctrine.

Part II develops two justfications for traditionalism: "interpretive" and "democratic-populist." The interpretive justification is that …

Religious Accommodation, The Establishment Clause, And Third-Party Harm, Mark Storslee

Faculty Scholarship

In the wake of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, religious accommodation has become increasingly controversial. That controversy has given rise to a new legal theory gaining popularity among academics and possibly a few Supreme Court justices: the idea that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause condemns accommodations whenever they generate anything beyond a minimal cost for third parties.

The third-party thesis is appealing. But this Article argues that there are good reasons to believe it falls short as an interpretation of the Establishment Clause. In its place, the Article offers a new theory for understanding the relationship between costly accommodations and the …