First Amendment Commons^™

The Upside Of Deep Fakes, Jessica Silbey, Woodrow Hartzog

Faculty Scholarship

It’s bad. We know. The dawn of “deep fakes” — convincing videos and images of people doing things they never did or said — puts us all in jeopardy in several different ways. Professors Bobby Chesney and Danielle Citron have noted that now “false claims — even preposterous ones — can be peddled with unprecedented success today thanks to a combination of social media ubiquity and virality, cognitive biases, filter bubbles, and group polarization.” The scholars identify a host of harms from deep fakes, ranging from people being exploited, extorted, and sabotaged, to societal harms like the erosion of democratic …

An Antitrust Approach To Corporate Free Exercise Claims, Ronald J. Colombo

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article suggests that antitrust law’s concept of market power could similarly be employed in balancing the free exercise rights of a corporation or any for-profit business venture against the rights of individuals. When a business enterprise seeks a religious liberty exemption from a rights-granting law, a major factor in assessing its claim should be the degree to which it wields market power in the relevant market. If the business is a monopolist, and, a fortiori, wielding tremendous market power, its claim for a free exercise exemption should probably fail. If, conversely, the business is but a minor marketplace …

Harmonizing The Tension Between The First Amendment And Publicity Rights And Finding The Right Balance: Discerning How Much Freedom Is Warranted And What Needs Protection, William Buchsbaum

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

This paper examines the tension between the First Amendment and Publicity Rights considering why and how friction is emerging, the legal underpinnings and theories behind the development of publicity rights and how to reconcile this with values raised in support of the First Amendment. This collision course of rights occurs where property interests have vested in human identity itself which brings us face to face with the outer limits of free speech and expression under the First Amendment and evens tests the notion of how we define speech. The paper takes a dive into some of the currently arising issues …

Free Speech Hypocrisy: Campus Free Speech Conflicts And The Sub-Legal First Amendment, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This Article is modest in scope. It seeks primarily to illuminate the role of free speech conflicts, especially those involving contentious speech, within the Court's jurisprudence, and to illustrate how arguments characterizing the protestors' speech as censorship misperceive the important role such conflicts play. Using both the Court's doctrinal framework and conflict resolution literature, this article attempts to bring deeper understanding to the purposes for the Court's approach, the context underlying the current conflicts, and the flaws underlying the argument that the protestors' actions are censorial. Part I briefly reviews three illustrative free speech conflicts at the University of Missouri, …

The Resilient Foundation Of Democracy: The Legal Deconstruction Of The Washington Posts's Condemnation Of Edward Snowden, Hanna Kim

Indiana Law Journal

On September 17, 2016, The Washington Post (“the Post”) made history by being the first paper to ever call for the criminal prosecution of its own source —Edward Snowden. Yet, two years prior to this editorial, the Post accepted the 2014 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service for its “revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency”—an honor which would not have been bestowed had Snowden not leaked the documents through this news outlet. The other three major media outlets that received and published Snowden’s documents and findings—The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Intercept—all have taken the …

Whistleblowing Speech And The First Amendment, Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr.

Indiana Law Journal

Alexander Meiklejohn, the iconic First Amendment scholar who expounded the democratic self-government theory of the freedom of speech, posited that for demo-cratic self-government to function, the voters themselves must possess the infor-mation necessary to hold the government accountable. Yet, the information neces-sary for the citizenry to render wise electoral verdicts not uncommonly belongs to the government itself, and government officials often prove highly reluctant to share information that reflects badly on them and their work. The lack of critically im-portant information about the government’s performance makes it difficult, if not impossible, for voters to hold government accountable on Election Day. …

“First Amendment Defense Act” (Fada) Is Reintroduced In The Senate, Public Rights/Private Conscience Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

New York, March 8, 2018–The Public Rights/Private Conscience Project is dismayed that the deceptively named “First Amendment Defense Act” (FADA) was reintroduced into the U.S. Senate today by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and 21 Republican co-sponsors, including Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ted Cruz (Texas) and Orrin Hatch (Utah). Not only is this bill unnecessary to the protection of religious liberty in the United States, its language would be harmful to the constitutional rights of millions of Americans.

Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery

Maine Law Review

When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court's decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” …

Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein

Maine Law Review

The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …

Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle

Maine Law Review

The search for a commonly agreed upon international legal understanding of the meaning of free speech or freedom of expression, as an individual human right, was a major international preoccupation from the 1940s to the 1980s. During the Cold War it was, of course, also a highly ideological debate. There were three positions, broadly speaking: the Soviet Union and its allies, who had little enthusiasm for the idea at all; the United States, which believed in it—many thought—too much; and the rest, the other Western democracies and developing countries, who tried to hold the middle ground. These contrasting positions were …

“Frankly Unthinkable”: The Constitutional Failings Of President Trump’S Proposed Muslim Registry, A. Reid Monroe-Sheridan

Maine Law Review

On several occasions during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump endorsed the creation of a mandatory government registry for Muslims in the United States— not just visitors from abroad, but American citizens as well. This astonishing proposal has received little attention in legal scholarship to date, even though Trump has refused to renounce the idea following his election to the presidency. In this Article, I attempt to address President Trump’ s proposal in several ways. First, I aim to provide a thorough analysis demonstrating unequivocally that such a “ Muslim registry,” with the characteristics President Trump has endorsed, would violate …

#I🔫U: Considering The Context Of Online Threats, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Linda Riedemann Norbutt

UF Law Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court has failed to grapple with the unique interpretive difficulties presented by social media threats cases. Social media make hateful and threatening speech more common but also magnify the potential for a speaker's innocent words to be misunderstood People speak differently on different social media platforms, and architectural features of platforms, such as character limits, affect the meaning of speech. The same is true of other contextual clues unique to social media, such as gifs, hashtags, and emojis. Only by understanding social media contexts can legal decision-makers avoid overcriminalization of speech protected by the First Amendment. …

Symposium: Truth, Trust And The First Amendment In The Digital Age: Foreword: Whither The Fourth Estate?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

As a professor of Media Law, I have devoted my career over the past quarter of a century to the idea that the press plays a special role in our democracy. That role is largely encapsulated by the concept of the press as Fourth Estate – an unofficial branch of government in our scheme of separation of powers that checks the power of the three official branches. In our constitutional scheme, the press is the watchdog that informs us what the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government are up to and continually replenishes the stock of news – real …

First Amendment Electronic Speech: Ex Parte Reece, A Missed Opportunity To Narrow Texas’S Unconstitutionally Overbroad Anti-Harassment Statute, Brian Long

SMU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Public Defender's Pin: Untangling Free Speech Regulation In The Courtroom, Michael Kagan

Scholarly Works

Recent disputes in Ohio and Nevada about whether lawyers should be allowed to wear “Black Lives Matter” pins in open court expose a fault line in First Amendment law. Lower courts have generally been unsympathetic to lawyers who display political symbols in court. But it would go too far suggest that free speech has no relevance in courtrooms. This Essay argues for a way to strike a balance.

University Trademarks And “Mixed Speech” On College Campuses: A Case Study Of Gerlich V. Leath And Student Free Speech Rights, Nathan Converse

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Higher education has long been a fundamental building block upon which American democracy is based. The guarantee of free speech is itself a revered liberty in the American polity; it has, in turn, served as the catalyst for higher education. Recent events on college campuses continue to reexamine universities’ role in their students’ education and push the legal boundaries on student speech rights. In many instances, however, students’ speech and expressive viewpoint conflicts with that of other students. Other times, students’ speech conflicts with the expressive interests of their university. This Article examines the latter instance in the context of …

Privacy's Double Standards, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

Where the right to privacy exists, it should be available to all people. If not universally available, then privacy rights should be particularly accessible to marginalized individuals who are subject to greater surveillance and are less able to absorb the social costs of privacy violations. But in practice, there is evidence that people of privilege tend to fare better when they bring privacy tort claims than do non-privileged individuals. This disparity occurs despite doctrine suggesting that those who occupy prominent and public social positions are entitled to diminished privacy tort protections.

This Article unearths disparate outcomes in public disclosure tort …

Hate Speech At Home And Abroad, Sarah H. Cleveland

Faculty Scholarship

The United States’ best-known constitutional protection internationally is surely the First Amendment. Around the world, the United States is perceived as protecting freedom of expression and the press first and foremost, among all rights. And whether admired for its purity and idealism or dismissed as naïve and sui generis, the United States’ approach to free speech is globally examined, critiqued, and debated. It is the United States’ most prominent constitutional export, informing the drafting of foreign constitutions, statutes, and judicial interpretations, and undergirding the protection for freedom of expression in the international and regional human rights systems.

This chapter …

Rights Skepticism And Majority Rule At The Birth Of The Modern First Amendment, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Learned Hand, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Louis Brandeis all had the same problem. They were troubled — Holmes less than the others and later, but eventually — by the widespread and mean-spirited persecution of dissenters they observed as the United States entered World War I and then reacted to the Bolshevik Revolution. Today, most persons so troubled would think that constitutional rights, and particularly the freedom of speech, exist for the very purpose of countermanding zealous political majorities that deny or neglect the claims of dissenters. But Hand, Holmes, and Brandeis, each by his own distinctive path, came to the …

Conant V. Walters: A Misapplication Of Free Speech Rights In The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Katharine M. Mccarthy

Maine Law Review

In Conant v. Walters, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the application of the First Amendment's right of free speech to a federal policy that prohibited the recommendation of medical marijuana by physicians. This class action suit, brought by physicians and severely ill patients, successfully enjoined the federal government from enforcing its policy revoking the federal prescriptive licenses of physicians who recommend or approve of marijuana use by patients suffering from certain severe illnesses. The federal government's policy, issued in 1996 through a statement of Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control …

Mediated Images Of Violence And The First Amendment: From Video Games To The Evening News, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards

Maine Law Review

In July 2004, a federal district court struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a Washington state law that restricted minors' access to video games containing “realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive conflict in which the player kills, injures, or otherwise causes physical harm to a human form in the game who is depicted, by dress or other recognizable symbols, as a public law enforcement officer.” The decision was anything but surprising. It followed in the footsteps of recent opinions issued by two federal appellate courts that held unconstitutional similar legislation regulating minors' access to fictional images of violence in video …

Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, And The Petition Clause, Karl S. Coplan

Maine Law Review

Although Article I of the Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress, the lawmaking process in this country has evolved to involve all three branches. Congress enacts regulatory programs, but delegates to the executive branch the task of formulating and legislating the details of implementation through regulations. Once the executive branch agencies have acted, Article III courts routinely step in to review the consistency of these regulations with congressional mandates. In many cases, especially in the case of controversial regulations, the lawmaking process is not complete until judicial review. Entities burdened by such regulations-so-called "regulatory objects"-enjoy presumed standing to challenge …

Fighting The New Wars Of Religion: The Need For A Tolerant First Amendment, Leslie C. Griffin

Maine Law Review

Religious wars have broken out around the country about the legality of gay marriage, the consequences of gay ordination for property ownership, the funding of faith-based organizations and the placement of crosses and Ten Commandments (but not Seven Aphorisms) on public land. To resolve such impassioned disputes, Americans traditionally look to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Unfortunately, the Court's modern decisions interpreting those clauses have shed more heat than light on the discussion and have provoked ongoing controversy instead of …

Hogan V. Gawker: A Leg-Drop On The First Amendment, Aubrey Morin

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Law—Why Amending The Consitution To Overrule Citizens United Is The Wrong Way To Fix Campaign Finance In The United States, Zachary Hale

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sony, Cyber Security, And Free Speech: Preserving The First Amendment In The Modern World, Conrad Wilton

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

Reprinted from 16 U.C. Davis Bus. L.J. 309 (2016). This paper explores the Sony hack in 2014 allegedly launched by the North Korean government in retaliation over Sony’s production of The Interview and considers the hack’s chilling impact on speech in technology. One of the most devastating cyber attacks in history, the hack exposed approximately thirty- eight million files of sensitive data, including over 170,000 employee emails, thousands of employee social security numbers and unreleased footage of upcoming movies. The hack caused Sony to censor the film and prompted members of the entertainment industry at large to tailor their communication …

Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its position on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways both large and small.

The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the …

Targeted Advertising And The First Amendment: Student Privacy Vs. Protected Speech, Marco Crocetti

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Political Insider Trading, Michael R. Siebecker

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Should the same legal principles that prohibit insider trading require corporations to disclose their political spending as well? The question seems particularly important in light of the increasing dominance of corporations in the political realm, the lack of transparency regarding corporate political activity, and the inherently suspicious motives of corporate executives who use corporate treasuries to advance their personal political preferences. This Article examines how the fiduciary principles of trust that underpin prohibitions on insider trading could inform and enhance the content of the general fiduciary duties that corporate officers and directors owe to their shareholders. Although insider trading prohibitions …

Siri-Ously 2.0: What Artificial Intelligence Reveals About The First Amendment, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

The First Amendment may protect speech by strong Artificial Intelligence (AI). In this Article, we support this provocative claim by expanding on earlier work, addressing significant concerns and challenges, and suggesting potential paths forward.

This is not a claim about the state of technology. Whether strong AI — as-yet-hypothetical machines that can actually think — will ever come to exist remains far from clear. It is instead a claim that discussing AI speech sheds light on key features of prevailing First Amendment doctrine and theory, including the surprising lack of humanness at its core.

Courts and commentators wrestling with free …