First Amendment Commons^™

The Democratic First Amendment, Ashutosh Bhagwat

Northwestern University Law Review

Over the past several decades, the Supreme Court and most First Amendment scholars have taken the position that the primary reason why the First Amendment protects freedom of speech is to advance democratic self-governance. In this Article, I will argue that this position, while surely correct insofar as it goes, is also radically incomplete. The fundamental problem is that the Court and, until recently, scholars have focused exclusively on the Religion Clauses and the Free Speech Clause. The rest of the First Amendment—the Press, Assembly, and Petition Clauses—might as well not exist. The topic of this Article is the five …

Cultural Democracy And The First Amendment, Jack M. Balkin

Northwestern University Law Review

Freedom of speech secures cultural democracy as well as political democracy. Just as it is important to make state power accountable to citizens, it is also important to give people a say over the development of forms of cultural power that transcend the state. In a free society, people should have the right to participate in the forms of meaning-making that shape who they are and that help constitute them as individuals.

The digital age shows the advantages of a cultural theory over purely democracy-based theories. First, the cultural account offers a more convincing explanation of why expression that seems …

Foreword, Cassandra Myers

Northwestern University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Multifactoral Free Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article presents a multifactoral approach to free speech analysis. Difficult cases present a variety of challenges that require judges to weigh concerns for the protection of robust dialogue, especially about public issues, against concerns that sound in common law (such as reputation), statutory law (such as repose against harassment), and in constitutional law (such as copyright). Even when speech is implicated, the Court should aim to resolve other relevant individual and social issues arising from litigation. Focusing only on free speech categories is likely to discount substantial, and sometimes compelling, social concerns warranting reflection, analysis, and application. Examining the …

Human Rights Law And Racial Hate Speech Regulation In Australia: Reform And Replace?, Dr. Alan Berman

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Freedom To Film Pornography, Marc J. Randazza

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Newsroom: Good Reason For Secrecy On 38 Studios 8/12/2016, Niki Kuckes, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Wrong Of Publicity, Albert Vetere

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

The right of publicity has been, since at least 1977, a recognized concept. It was used, much like the other areas of intellectual property law to protect what a person had worked hard to create, in this case the concept of themselves. Their creativity in making themselves known and in having an "act" was worth protecting. However, the right of publicity has drastically changed since its conception. What is has become in the past almost forty years is a strange amalgamation of concepts, protected by laws that were never meant to be used to protect it in the first place. …

Prosecuting Online Threats After Elonis, Michael Pierce

Northwestern University Law Review

In Elonis v. United States, decided last term, the Supreme Court vacated a conviction for online threats on the ground that the lower court erred in its instructions to the jury regarding mens rea. In doing so, however, the Court declined to articulate which mens rea standard would have sustained a conviction. It is thus currently uncertain which mens rea the government must prove when prosecuting online threats under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c). The Elonis Court discussed three potential mens rea standards; as universal standards for online threats, each leaves something to be desired. Fortunately, federal courts need not …

Taking A Bite Out Of Michael Vick's Publicity Rights: An Analysis Of How Teh Right Of Publicity Should Be Treated After A Celebrity Is Convicted Of A Crime, Stephen Reginald Fowler

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Trapped In Public: The Regulation Of Street Harassment And Cyber-Harassment Under The Captive Audience Doctrine, Joanne Sweeny

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Freedom Of Speech In Public Forums On College Campuses: A Single-Site Case Study On Pushing The Boundaries Of The Freedom Of Speech, Alexander Davidson

Journalism

The purpose of this single-site study is to test how far speech can be pushed before it is no longer protected at the California Polytechnic State University. The purpose isn’t merely to push limitations for the sake of testing boundaries, but it is to see what types of speech truly add to the marketplace of ideas and what types simply do not. The main points of the study are to understand what speech is protected and what speech is not protected on California Polytechnic State University’s campus and to understand how the provocation that comes along with “negative speech” can …

Protecting Public Employee Trial Testimony, Joseph Deloney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In a number of jurisdictions around the United States, police officers and other public employees that regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties can be placed in compromising positions. Because these types of employees regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties, such testimony is considered “employee speech” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. Consequently, governmental employers can take adverse employment actions against an employee based on his or her truthful trial testimony without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lane v. Franks and other circuit court cases, …

“They Outlawed Solidarity!”, Richard Blum

Seattle University Law Review

In attacking § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)’s ban on secondary labor picketing in support of a consumer boycott as a violation of the First Amendment, critics have repeatedly condemned the Supreme Court’s reliance on a supposed distinction between “pure speech” and “speech plus conduct,” such as a picket. The Court’s invocation of an “unlawful objectives” doctrine to defend banning speech contrary to public policy has also been repeatedly criticized. After all, picketing has been recognized as protected expressive activity and it is entirely lawful for consumers to choose to boycott the target of a picket. However, commentators have not sought to argue that …

Elonis V. United States: The Need To Uphold Individual Rights To Free Speech While Protecting Victims Of Online True Threats, Alison J. Best

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tricky Negotiation: Free Speech Versus Insensitivity, Melvin Dilanchian

Washington University Undergraduate Law Review

The central question presented in this paper is whether specialty license plates constitute government speech, and are thus subject to disapproval by the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. The core concerns reviewed in this research, largely focus on defining whose speech specialty license plates are. The purpose is to investigate and analyze the precedent established as a result of a recent case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. The paper thoroughly reviews the arguments made in the majority opinion, as well as those of the dissenting opinion, with an interdisciplinary approach. The argument presented …

Etw Corp. V. Jireb Publishing, Inc.: Turning An Athlete's Publicity Over To The Public, Michael J. Breslin

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

A New Test To Reconcile The Right Of Publicity With Core First Amendment Values, Mark Joseph Stern, Nat Stern

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Words Of Wisdom From The Founding Fathers: Why The Internal Revenue Service Should Let Churches Be, Sophia Benavides

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Part I of this comment will explore the foundations of the First Amendment, as the Constitution is a framework on which the United States continues to rest. An examination of the events contributing and leading to the drafting of the Constitution will illuminate the rationale behind the tenets put forth by the Founding Fathers. More specifically, this comment will devote emphasis to the Founding Fathers’ objectives regarding the state in relation to religion. This emphasis will provide insight into the perspective of the Founders at the time of drafting the First Amendment. Furthermore, this section will illustrate how the separation …

To Show, Or Not To Show—That Was The Question: A Discussion Regarding The First Amendment Issues Implicated By The Sony Pictures Entertainment Cyberhack & The Interview Debacle, Chelsey Huso

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

No abstract provided.

Silencing Grand Jury Witnesses, R. Michael Cassidy

Indiana Law Journal

This Article addresses one crucial aspect of the ongoing debate about grand jury transparency. Assuming that well over half the states and the federal government continue to employ the grand jury to investigate felony offenses, and assuming that these proceedings continue to be shielded from public view, should witnesses themselves be allowed to discuss their testimony with the press or with each other? This larger question raises two narrow but very important subsidiary issues. First, does a prosecutor who conditions a written proffer or cooperation agreement with a grand jury witness on the witness’s promise not to inform other targets, …

Celebrities’ Expansive “Right Of Publicity” Infringes Upon Advertisers’ First Amendment Rights, Jon Siderits

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

No abstract provided.

At The Intersection Of Religious Organization Missions And Employment Laws: The Case Of Minister Employment Suits, Jarod S. Gonzalez

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing the intersection of a religious organization’s right to select employees based on their goals and mission and modern employment law, this article argues that the analysis of the ministerial exception will depend on the type of suit brought. Specifically, the Article identifies five analytical categories: (1) employment discrimination/employment retaliation claims; (2) breach of employment contract claims; (3) whistleblower claims; (4) tort claims; and (5) miscellaneous claims.

The Article begins by describing the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines that exist under the First Amendment through the lens of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School …

The Storm Arrives: The First Amendment Cases In The Supreme Court's 1999-2000 Term, Joel M. Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Appellate Division, Third Department Matter, Of Schulz V. Pataki, Daniela Licata

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States District Court, Southern District Of New York, People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals V. Giuliani, Melissa Murphy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

United States Court Of Appeals Second Circuit, Seabrook V. City Of New York, Wendy Holland

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Calm After The Storm: First Amendment Cases In The Supreme Court’S 2000-2001 Term, Joel Gora

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of The Catholic University Of America School Of Canon Law, The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Queens Federation Of Churches, And The Serbian Orthodox Church In North And South America, As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett, David H. Hyams

Court Briefs

No. 15.1005
Chabad-Lubavitch of Michigan v. Dr. Dov Schuchman

On Petition for a Writ of Ceriorari to the Supreme Court of Michigan

This brief addresses the importance of the principle of church autonomy and the protections provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and this Court's precedents regarding religious denominations' internal mandatory dispute-resolution procedures.

Panhandling After Mccullen V. Coakley, Cynthia Barmore

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.