First Amendment Commons^™

Comrades Or Foes: Did The Russians Break The Law Or New Ground For The First Amendment?, Artem M. Joukov, Samantha M. Caspar

Pace Law Review

This Article discusses the recent decision by the United States Federal Government to indict more than a dozen Russian nationals for conspiracy to defraud the United States of America. The Government accused the Russians of staging protests, distributing false propaganda, and spreading political messages and ideologies online in an effort to affect the outcome of the 2016 Presidential Election. We argue that while the Defendants violated several other laws, the majority of the acts the Government classifies as a conspiracy to defraud the United States should not be considered criminal. Rather, these acts are protected political speech under the First …

Trademarks & The First Amendment After Matal V. Tam, Gary Myers

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Mata! v. Tam is a landmark decision regarding the intersection between free speech and trademark law. Addressing whether trademarks can legitimately be barred from federal trademark protection under the Lanham Act based solely on their possible disparaging content, the litigation involving an Asian-American band that sought to register the name, "The Slants," brought this important interplay into stark relief. Writing in bold strokes, Justice Alito's opinion holds that the Lanham Act's prohibition on disparaging marks, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. "It offends a bedrock First …

Rethinking Social Media: An Expert Panel Discussion, Howard M. Squadron Program In Law, Media And Society, Bonavero Institute Of Human Rights, Cardozo Law Moot Court Honor Society

2018–2019 Flyers

This expert panel discussion, moderated by Professor Monroe Price, explored the evolving challenges and regulatory efforts related to social media. Held on Thursday, January 31st, from 6–8pm in the Moot Court Room at Cardozo School of Law, the event addressed pressing issues such as child pornography, cyberstalking, hate speech, terrorist content, and the impact of social media on U.S. elections. Panelists included Robyn Caplan (Data and Society), Jessa Lingel (University of Pennsylvania), and Cardozo Professor Felix Wu, whose work focuses on freedom of expression and cybersecurity. Presented by the Howard M. Squadron Program in Law, Media and Society in partnership …

The Defamation Injunction Meets The Prior Restraint Doctrine, Doug Rendleman

Scholarly Articles

In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court added the injunction to executive licensing as a prior restraint. Although the Near court circumscribed the injunction as a prior restraint, it approved criminal sanctions and damages judgments. The prior restraint label resembles a death sentence. This article maintains that such massive retaliation is overkill.

A judge’s injunction that forbids the defendant’s tort of defamation tests Near and prior restraint doctrine because defamation isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Arguing that the anti-defamation injunction has outgrown outright bans under the prior restraint rule and the equitable Maxim that “Equity will not enjoin defamation” …

A Close Reading Of Barnette, In Honor Of Vincent Blasi, Paul Horwitz

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Compelled Subsidies And Original Meaning, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

The rule against compelled subsidization of speech is at the forefront of modem First Amendment disputes. Challenges to mandatory union dues, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the federal "contraceptive mandate" have all featured variants of the anti-subsidization principle, reasoning that the government cannot compel people to support the objectionable activities of others. But the literature currently fails to evaluate modem compelled-subsidy doctrine in terms of the original meaning of the First Amendment. This Essay takes up that task.

Approaching any question of original meaning requires a willingness to encounter a constitutional world that looks very …

Data Subjects' Privacy Rights: Regulation Of Personal Data Retention And Erasure, Alexander Tsesis...

University of Colorado Law Review

No abstract provided.

Drawing Trump Naked: Curbing The Right Of Publicity To Protect Public Discourse, Thomas E. Kadri

Scholarly Works

From Donald Trump to Lindsay Lohan to Manuel Noriega, real people who are portrayed in expressive works are increasingly targeting creators of those works for allegedly violating their “right of publicity”—a state-law tort, grounded in privacy concerns, that prohibits the unauthorized use of a person’s name, likeness, and other identifying characteristics. This Article provides a new framework to reconcile publicity rights with a robust commitment to free speech under the First Amendment. After describing the current landscape in the courts, this Article scrutinizes the “educative” First Amendment theory that has motivated many of the past decisions confronting the right of …

Facebook V. Sullivan: Public Figures And Newsworthiness In Online Speech, Thomas E. Kadri, Kate Klonick

Scholarly Works

In the United States, there are now two systems to adjudicate disputes about harmful speech. The first is older and more established: the legal system in which judges apply constitutional law to limit tort claims alleging injuries caused by speech. The second is newer and less familiar: the content-moderation system in which platforms like Facebook implement the rules that govern online speech. These platforms are not bound by the First Amendment. But, as it turns out, they rely on many of the tools used by courts to resolve tensions between regulating harmful speech and preserving free expression—particularly the entangled concepts …

Powerful Speakers And Their Listeners, Helen Norton

Publications

In certain settings, law sometimes puts listeners first when their First Amendment interests collide with speakers’. And collide they often do. Sometimes speakers prefer to tell lies when their listeners thirst for the truth. Sometimes listeners hope that speakers will reveal their secrets, while those speakers resist disclosure. And at still other times, speakers seek to address certain listeners when those listeners long to be left alone. When speakers’ and listeners’ First Amendment interests collide, whose interests should prevail? Law sometimes – but not always – puts listeners’ interests first in settings outside of public discourse where those listeners have …

The Invention Of First Amendment Federalism, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

When insisting that the Sedition Act of 1798 violated the First Amendment, Jeffersonian Republicans cast their argument in historical terms, claiming that the Speech and Press Clauses eliminated any federal power to restrict expression. Scholars, in turn, have generally accepted that Republicans had a consistent understanding of the First Amendment throughout the 1790s. But Founding Era constitutionalism was dynamic in practice, even while often conservative in rhetoric, and scholars have missed the striking novelty of the principal argument against the Sedition Act. Republicans had taken a rights provision and transformed it into a federalism rule.

Mostly ignored in the literature, …

Speech And Exercise By Private Individuals And Organizations, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

A central issue about redundancy concerns how far the exercise of religion is simply a form of speech that is, and should be, constitutionally protected only to the extent that reaches speech generally. Insofar as a constitutional analysis leaves flexibility, we have questions about wise legislative choices. To consider these issues carefully, we need to have a sense of what counts as relevant speech and the exercise of religion. That is the focus of this article.

It addresses the basic categorization of what counts as “speech” for freedom of speech and what counts as religious exercise when each is engaged …

How Supreme A Court?, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Facebook is planning an independent appeals process for content moderation decisions. But how much power will it have?

How To Make Facebook's 'Supreme Court' Work, Kate Klonick, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

The idea of a body that will decide what kind of content is allowed on the site is promising — but only if it’s done right.

Challenging Calls For Civility, Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt

Faculty Publications

In conjunction with her article "When Free Speech Disrupts Diversity Initiatives: What We Value and What We Do Not," Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt writes about civility codes and free speech for Academe Blog.

Is The Cure Worse Than The Disease?: Censorship Of Hate Speech May Well Increase Violence, Gordon Danning

Nevada Law Journal Forum

From Charlottesville to college campuses, people with odious hate groups have risen in notoriety recently. Responses to those people and the groups to which they belong have ranged from efforts to keep them from speaking in person, to deleting their presence on the internet, to efforts to have them terminated from their jobs or evicted from their apartments, and even to physical assault by members of such groups as Antifa. Such efforts at censoring, ostracizing, and stigmatizing hate group members are generally justified by claims that such individuals are dangerous. It is true that some scholars have found an association …

Laying Siege To The Ivory Tower: Resource Allocation In Response To The Heckler's Veto On University Campuses, Macklin W. Thornton

San Diego Law Review

High in the towers of academia, the lofty ideals of free speech are tossed around with a deceptive ease. However, as legal minds grapple with heady legal doctrines, free speech has concrete consequences down at the foot of those towers. At this ivory base, the property line between the university and the community blur. Students and nonstudents assemble and deliver conflicting speech that, at times, foments violence. Molotov cocktails, gun shots, broken windows, disgruntled students. All attempts to trigger the dreaded heckler’s veto—an attempt the government has an obligation to prevent. In addition to the public relations disasters grown from …

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 …

Professional Standards And The First Amendment In Higher Education: When Institutional Academic Freedom Collides With Student Speech Rights, Clay Calvert

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Using the decisions in Keefe, Oyama and Tatro as analytical springboards, this Article examines rising tensions between institutional academic freedom and the First Amendment speech rights of college students. Specifically, the friction addressed here occurs when universities enforce external professional standards on students within their curricula. Initially, Part I provides a primer on institutional academic freedom. Part II then contrasts the vastly deferential Hazelwood approach to professional-standards disputes embraced by the Eighth Circuit in Keefe with the somewhat more rigorous ones adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Oyama and Minnesota’s Supreme Court in Tatro.

Part III then …

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, …

A Penny For Your Thoughts: Free Speech And Paying Fines With Coins, Peter C. Alexander

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Losing The Spirit Of Tinker V. Des Moines And The Urgent Need To Protect Student Speech, David L. Hudson, Jr.

Et Cetera

Although the United States Supreme Court has held that public school students maintain freedom of speech and expression in school, courts have continued to restrict these Constitutional rights for these students. The speech protective standard from Tinker has gone from being speech protective to a test that favors and is deferential to school officials embroiled in students’ free-speech controversies. We need to regain the attitude of gratitude for students and their rights.

This abstract was written after publication by 2023-2024 Et Cetera Editor-in-Chief Philip Shipman

Extremist Speech, Compelled Conformity, And Censorship Creep, Danielle Keats Citron

Notre Dame Law Review

Silicon Valley has long been viewed as a full-throated champion of First Amendment values. The dominant online platforms, however, have recently adopted speech policies and processes that depart from the U.S. model. In an agreement with the European Commission, the dominant tech companies have pledged to respond to reports of hate speech within twenty-four hours, a hasty process that may trade valuable expression for speedy results. Plans have been announced for an industry database that will allow the same companies to share hashed images of banned extremist content for review and removal elsewhere. These changes are less the result of …

When Should Rights "Trump"? An Examination Of Speech And Property, Laura S. Underkuffler

Maine Law Review

In his well-known article, Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust, Professor Richard Epstein—a leading contemporary voice in the fields of property theory and constitutional law—makes a simple but compelling argument. There has been, he argues, a mistake in “the dominant mode of thinking about property rights during the past fifty years [that] has been ... of constitutional dimensions.” This mistake, in Professor Epstein's view, is the refusal of the federal courts to accord to individual property rights the same kind of protection from government regulation that is accorded to other constitutional rights. Using free speech as his example, Professor …

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 …

Speech V. Speakers, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Twitter's new rules about extremist speech blur the lines between people and words.

Fair Use And First Amendment: Without Fair Use, What Would You Freely Speak About?, Adam Blaier

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

The question this paper tries to answer is: Without fair use, what would you freely speak about? This paper will seek to demonstrate that the Copyright Clause’s Fair Use doctrine, and the First Amendment are cousins who help each other, rather than enemies sworn to destroy each other as some believe. First I will give a brief overview and history of each doctrine. Next I will speak about three areas where I believe fair use and the First Amendment cross paths extensively. These areas are: (1) school/education; (2) social media and news; and (3) sports images/broadcasting. Finally, I will demonstrate …

Fourth & Inches: Marking The Line Of Athletes’ Free Speech (A Colin Kaepernick Inspired Discussion), Ryan J. Mcginty

Pace Intellectual Property, Sports & Entertainment Law Forum

This note addresses the ongoing controversial stance that was ignited when Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the playing of the national anthem in protest of what he deems are wrongdoings against African Americans and minorities in the United States. The scope of this note does not surround Kaepernick himself, but rather the professional NFL football player in general. Specifically, players are entitled to the full rights of free expression and free speech as human beings and public figures, up and until the line where that right is abused on the field or “on the job,” thereby threatening an increase …

Three Approaches To Freedom Of Speech, R. George Wright

Et Cetera

Although it is proper to classify many free speech writers as first rate, it is possible that the age in which they write inhibits the production of genuinely great work with a genuinely common goal. With this in mind, we must look at whether there is free speech protection for nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense under the Court’s case law. The underlying problem for today’s free speech theorists is no doubt multifaceted. But one important aspect thereof may involve our collective poring over the glittering remnants of a shattered mirror, even as our understandings of the possible uses of …

When Free Speech Disrupts Diversity Initiatives: What We Value And What We Do Not, Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt

Faculty Publications

In this essay, I argue that the debate on free speech as pushed by the conservative right is a strategic apparatus to undermine the various diversity initiatives on college and university campuses. While supporters of the right wing extremists around the globe have pushed for various modes of exclusions (social, racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and sexual), here in the United States, such exclusions are most evident in the collapse of academic freedom and the rise of civility codes as students and educators use the platform of free speech to promote various forms of injustices and exclusions. Our neoliberal college and …