First Amendment Commons^™

No Exit: Ten Years Of "Privacy Vs. Speech" Post-Sorrell, G. S. Hans

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A decade has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court held in Sorrell vs. IMS Health that a Vermont privacy law violated the First Amendment. Somewhat surprisingly, the debate about the intersection between privacy laws and free speech protections has not progressed much in the intervening years. If anything, the concerns that some privacy advocates had following Sorrell-that the First Amendment could be used as a tool to overturn privacy regulations-have extended to other areas of economic regulation. As a public interest attorney working on technology law and policy, I entered into practice not long after Sorrell was decided, when it …

The Interdependence Of Racial Justice And Free Speech For Racists, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

No abstract provided.

Panel One: Classification And Access To National Security Information, Mary-Rose Papandrea, Margaret Kwoka, David Pozen, Stephen I. Vladeck

Faculty Scholarship

This article is a transcript of the first panel of First Amendment Law Review’s 2021 Symposium on National Security, Whistleblowers, and the First Amendment, discussing classification and access to national security information.

Restoring Student Press Freedoms: Why Every State Needs A 'New Voices' Law, Clare R. Norins, Taran Harmon-Walker, Navroz Tharani

Scholarly Works

Scholastic journalists across America have long provided vital reporting, commentary, and fresh perspective on issues of public concern to their readers. Never has this been more true than in the current age of dwindling print media, where scholastic journalists at both the high school and post-secondary levels are stepping in to populate what would otherwise be news deserts. Yet the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988), allows school officials to censor both the content and style of school-sponsored media without offending the First Amendment. This essay traces the history of student speech rights …

Freedom Of Expression Within The Schoolhouse Gate, Justin Driver

Arkansas Law Review

In the late 1960s, the Supreme Court began contemplating how the First Amendment’s commitment to “the freedom of speech” should protect the right of students to introduce their own ideas into the schoolhouse. This constitutional question extended well beyond the matter addressed in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, because that opinion—momentous though it was—held simply that students could refuse to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. But Barnette did not establish that students possessed an affirmative right to advance their own opinions, on topics of their own selection, much less in the face of school officials’ objections. The …

Federal Court Allows Civil Rights Lawsuit Challenging Violations At Standing Rock, Columbia Center For Contemporary Critical Thought

Columbia Center for Contemporary Critical Thought

New York, September 3, 2020 — In a significant victory for critics of governmental overreach, Judge Daniel M. Traynor (U.S. District Court for North Dakota) denied motions to dismiss filed by state and county law enforcement defendants and the private security firm, TigerSwan LLC. As a result, the Thunderhawk v. County of Morton civil rights lawsuit, brought by plaintiffs Cissy Thunderhawk, Wašté Win Young, the Reverend John Floberg, and José Zhagñay against North Dakota government officials and TigerSwan, will move forward on the claim that the plaintiffs and the class were denied their constitutional rights to Free Speech.

Media Literacy Beyond The National Security Frame, Lili Levi

Utah Law Review

The Trump administration’s delegitimizing refrain characterizing legacy media as “fake news” institutions has doubtless exacerbated growing public distrust in government and accountability institutions. It has also promoted arrogation of power by the Executive. Media literacy must be broadened to encompass the more capacious goal of helping citizens understand the structure, operations, and structural role in democracy, and the interconnected ways in which it is threatened. Expanding the public’s understanding of the proper role of the press and the ways in which modern information industries operate attention markets, promoting the audience’s awareness of its own cognitive blind spots, increasing reporters’ critical …

Disappearing Act: Are Free Speech Rights Decreasing?, Michael Conklin

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Hot Off The Press: An Argument For A Federal Shield Law Affording A Qualified Evidentiary Privilege To Journalists In Light Of Renewed Concerns About Freedom Of The Press And National Security, Nicole N. Wentworth

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Nfl Player, The Schoolchild, And The Entertainer: When The Term "Free Speech" Is Too Freely Spoken, Exactly "Who's On First?", Christian Ketter

Cleveland State Law Review

As America’s media and politicians continue to debate the free speech rights of NFL players, schoolchildren, and entertainers, the dialogue has confused many Americans as to what exactly the First Amendment protects. Chief Justice John G. Roberts ultimately assumes the role of an umpire in many of these issues, guiding the United States Supreme Court to incrementally “call balls and strikes.” In recent years, the Court has umpired employment rights and state action cases, and Roberts’s calls will likely further distance the Court that decided Morse v. Frederick from the one that decided Tinker v. Des Moines. Amid a …

Automation In Moderation, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

This Article assesses recent efforts to encourage online platforms to use automated means to prevent the dissemination of unlawful online content before it is ever seen or distributed. As lawmakers in Europe and around the world closely scrutinize platforms’ “content moderation” practices, automation and artificial intelligence appear increasingly attractive options for ridding the Internet of many kinds of harmful online content, including defamation, copyright infringement, and terrorist speech. Proponents of these initiatives suggest that requiring platforms to screen user content using automation will promote healthier online discourse and will aid efforts to limit Big Tech’s power.

In fact, however, the …

Ministries Of Truth: Free Speech And The Tech Giants, Clayton Calvin

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

As the tech giants’ influence has grown, they have increasingly become arbiters of truth. This comment explores three methods for lessening their authority over digital speech. Antitrust, adjustment of the companies’ “neutral platform” status, and even creative use of First Amendment could each serve its role. At the same time, the First Amendment rights of the companies themselves pose a barrier, justifiably, to each method. To remain true to its founding ideals, America must lessen this private grip on civic discourse without expanding the government’s dominion over it.

Rescuing Our Democracy By Rethinking New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, David A. Logan

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

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. …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Journal Articles

Refuting the unhelpful fixation on the mere presence of generic harm, this Article makes two important contributions, one descriptive and one normative. First, this Article carefully describes the nuanced ways that courts classify and weigh different types of harm, and it identifies three categories: (1) prohibited harms (meaning harms that are categorically impermissible); (2) probative harms (meaning relevant harms that can be balanced against other harms); and (3) inadmissible harms (meaning harms that are given no weight regardless of how severely or disproportionately they are experienced by third parties). This Article demonstrates how these categories of harm are not limited …

Monopolizing Free Speech, Greg Day

Scholarly Works

The First Amendment prevents the government from suppressing speech, though individuals can ban, chill, or abridge free expression without offending the Constitution. Hardly an unintended consequence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously likened free speech to a marketplace where the responsibility of rejecting dangerous, repugnant, or worthless speech lies with the people. This is supposed to maximize social welfare since the market is believed to promote good ideas and condemn bad ones better than the state. Nevertheless, anxiety is mounting that large technology corporations exercise unreasonable power in the marketplace of ideas.

Because the ability of “big tech” to abridge speech …

Speech, Innovation, And Competition, Greg Day

Scholarly Works

Critics contend that concentrated power in digital markets has generated threats to free speech. For a variety of reasons, market power is naturally thought to concentrate in digital markets. The consequence is that “big tech” is said to face little competition; Facebook controls 72 percent of the social media market while the parent of YouTube (72 percent of the video market) is Google (92 percent of the search market). This landscape has potentially vested private companies with unprecedented power over the flow of information. If Facebook, for example, decides to ban certain types of speech or ideas, it would potentially …

'Water Is Life!' (And Speech!): Death, Dissent, And Democracy In The Borderlands, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

Decades of stringent immigration enforcement along the Southwest border have pushed migrants into perilous desert corridors. Thousands have died in border regions, out of the general public view, yet migrants continue to attempt the dangerous crossings. In response to what they see as a growing humanitarian crisis, activists from organizations such as No More Deaths seek to expand migrant access to water, to honor the human remains of those who did not survive the journey, and to influence public opinion about border enforcement policies. Government officials, however, have employed a range of tactics to repress this border-policy “dissent,” including blacklists, …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars In Support Of Equality In Support Of Respondents, Fulton V. City Of Philadelpha, Kyle Velte, David Cruz, Michael Higdon, Anthony Michael Kreis, Shirley Lin, Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

This Brief of Amici Curiae Legal Scholars in Support of Equality in Support of Respondents filed in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia addresses the propriety of an analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation cases involving sexual orientation discrimination. The race analogy in sexual orientation cases proceeds as follows: Advocates and judges widely agree that courts should, and would, reject a religious exemption claim by a public accommodation—such a foster care agency—seeking to turn away an African-American or interracial couple based on the public accommodation’s religious beliefs that Blacks are inferior to whites or that the races should not mix. …

All The Border's A Stage: Humanitarian Aid As Expressive Dissent, Jason A. Cade

Scholarly Works

Immigration enforcement along the Southwest border between the United States and Mexico has long channeled immigrants into perilous desert corridors, where many thousands have dies, out of the public view. In response to this humanitarian crisis, activists from organizations such as No More Deaths (NMD) trek deep into the treacherous desert, hoping to save lives, honor the remains of those who did not survive, and influence public opinion about border enforcement policies. NMD's activism is not merely utilitarian but also deeply expressive; ultimately, they hope to convey the message that all lives -- including those of unauthorized migrants-- are worth …

The Modern Fight For Media Freedom In The United States, Jonathan Peters

Scholarly Works

The First Amendment as a subject is challenging and provocative, and scholarly and popular understandings of it are changing. New communication technologies are pushing lawyers, judges, and scholars to revisit, and sometimes rethink, old legal doctrines and concepts. In the area of privacy, we have to think today about encryption and a website's terms of service. In the area of copyright, we have to think about peer-to-peer file sharing and the licenses granted by iTunes. In the area of sexual expression, we have to think about sexting, revenge porn, and deep fakes.'

This is the emerging state of play for …

The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law, Yonathan A. Arbel, Murat C. Mungan

Faculty Scholarship

It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition—commonsensical, pervasive, and influential—is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience.

Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than statements made without accountability. Strict defamation law would tend to increase the perceived reliability of statements, which in some cases can …

Assumptions About Terrorism And The Brandenburg Incitement Test, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

The incitement standard announced in Brandenburg v. Ohio is one of the most familiar tests in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence. It prohibits government officials from punishing advocacy of illegal activity unless it is directed and likely to imminently incite such activity. Brandenburg's standard has become a pillar of free speech law, allowing government officials to protect public safety by punishing only speech intended and likely to create an imminent danger of harm, while protecting even the most abhorrent of speakers from suppression of their speech simply because government officials fear or dislike it. Terrorist advocacy, however, is putting pressure on …

This Isn't Lochner, It's The First Amendment: Reorienting The Right To Contract And Commercial Speech, William French

Northwestern University Law Review

The commercial speech doctrine has long weathered accusations that it is simply an attempt to reinvigorate the laissez-faire protections provided by Lochner v. New York. The modern interpretation of Lochner is generally condemnatory, arguing that its “right to contract” is a symbol of the Supreme Court’s unprincipled decision to impose its own economic preferences upon the nation. Even though Lochnerism itself has been dead for nearly 100 years, some scholars believe that the First Amendment’s commercial speech doctrine is on its way to replicating the defenses provided by the right to contract. The argument goes that because speech pervades …

Sex, Lies, And Videotape: Deep Fakes And Free Speech Delusions, Mary Anne Franks, Ari Ezra Waldman

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1851 Center For Constitutional Law, And Profs. Jonathan Entin, David F. Forte, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Stephen Lazarus, Kevin Francis O’Neill, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Caplan, And Eugene Volokh In Support Of Respondent-Appellant, Joni Bey And Rebecca Rasawehr V. Jeffrey Rasawehr, Supreme Court Of Ohio (Case No. 2019-0295), David Forte, Stephen R. Lazarus, Kevin F. O'Neill, Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo, Raymond Ku, Margaret Tarkington, Aaron H. Kaplan, Eugene Volokh

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The brief argues that the Third District Court of Appeals, in violation of the First Amendment, erred in upholding an injunction that barred defendant from any online postings regarding plaintiff, whether or not those postings were to plaintiff or to third parties.

Free Speech On Public College Campuses, Christopher Gothard

Senior Honors Projects, 2010-2019

The topic of free speech has become increasingly publicized and debated recently. With cases of speech being suppressed coming to light all across the country, it is apparent that there has been a tremendous shift in views on college campuses on the right to free speech. Through trying to balance an inclusive society with the right of all to speak freely, the First Amendment right to free speech and the applicable case law have begun to be inconsistently interpreted, specifically on public college campuses. Whether by imposing security costs on speakers, solely utilizing free speech zones, or allowing the heckler’s …

Clear As Mud: Constitutional Concerns With Clear Affirmative Consent, C. Ashley Saferight

Cleveland State Law Review

Rape and sexual assault laws and policies have shifted significantly in recent years, including the introduction of affirmative consent. Unfortunately, both proponents and critics tend to confuse the issues and falsely equate affirmative consent as a substantive social standard versus a procedural standard for adjudication and punishment. Although affirmative consent generally does not represent a significant change in consent law in the United States, statutes and policies requiring a further requirement that affirmative consent be clear and unambiguous (“clear affirmative consent”) are problematic and raise constitutional concerns. When clear affirmative consent policies are used as an adjudicative standard, they increase …

Lactose’S Intolerance: The Role Of Manufacturers’ Rights And Commercial Free Speech In Big Dairy’S Fight To Restrict Use Of The Term “Milk”, Kathleen Justis

Brooklyn Law Review

This note examines the relationship between restrictions on commercial speech and manufacturers’ First Amendment right to describe their products to consumers, with a focus on the DAIRY PRIDE Act. It argues that broad, content-based restrictions of commercial speech, like that proposed in the DAIRY PRIDE Act, likely impose unconstitutional limitations on manufacturers’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This note recommends that both Congress and the FDA should refrain from passing a statute or promulgating a regulation like the DAIRY PRIDE Act. Rather, it proposes that adding rules to control the proportions and location of disclaimers on product labels …

Platforms, The First Amendment And Online Speech: Regulating The Filters, Sofia Grafanaki

Pace Law Review

In recent years, online platforms have given rise to multiple discussions about what their role is, what their role should be, and whether they should be regulated. The complex nature of these private entities makes it very challenging to place them in a single descriptive category with existing rules. In today’s information environment, social media platforms have become a platform press by providing hosting as well as navigation and delivery of public expression, much of which is done through machine learning algorithms. This article argues that there is a subset of algorithms that social media platforms use to filter public …