First Amendment Commons^™

Is John Stuart Mill's On Liberty Obsolete?, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

In On Liberty, published in 1859, John Stuart Mill argues for the “absolute” protection of the “liberty of thought and discussion.” Ever the empiricist, he maintains that such uncompromised freedom, not for all communication or self-expression but for the subset of those activities that qualifies as thought and discussion, would generate the best overall consequences for societies such as Great Britain and the United States. The advent of digital technology has altered how thought and discussion is generated, distributed, and received in ways that might problematize some of the empirical assumptions upon which Mill's argument in On Liberty is …

Opening Dialogue, Lee C. Bollinger, Geoffrey R. Stone

Faculty Scholarship

To set the stage for the excellent essays that make up this volume on the future of free speech, let’s begin where we often do when thinking together about the First Amendment: with some basic facts and fundamental observations about the constitutional command that “Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Of course, in the United States, “free speech” is not only part of the constitutional Bill of Rights; it is also a cultural and social norm by which we choose to live. Several of the essays in this volume therefore take …

The Rise, Fall, And Rise Of Cyber Civil Libertarianism, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

Using sexual speech as its focal point, this essay explores the ambiguous legacy of cyber civil liberties and the ascent of alternative paradigms for digital freedom. From its inception, cyberlaw was characterized by a moral panic over sexual speech, pornography, and the protection of children familiar to First Amendment scholars. Important civil libertarian victories recognized that sexual speech and pornography were constitutionally protected from state intervention. The civil libertarian paradigm saw government regulation as the primary threat to free speech online, the marketplace as the more appropriate mechanism for regulating expression, and courts as the rightful arbiters of these disputes. …

Public Accommodations And The Right To Refrain From Expressing Oneself, Mark Strasser

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States Supreme Court has been unable to articulate a coherent position when addressing the right of individuals to refrain from expressing themselves. The Court has applied various tests inconsistently—emphasizing principles in some cases, ignoring them in subsequent cases, and then emphasizing them again in later cases as if those principles had always been applied. The Court’s approach is incoherent, offering little guidance to lower courts except to suggest that public accommodations laws may soon be found inconsistent with First Amendment guarantees.

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

A Democracy Story: Reframing A Free Speech Landmark, Thomas Healy

Michigan Law Review

A review of Actual Malice: Civil Rights and Freedom of the Press in New York Times v. Sullivan. By Samantha Barbas.

Government Counterspeech, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

We are awash in lies. Misinformation has always been with us, but the endemicity of social media and the depth of political polarization in the United States and elsewhere has enabled falsehoods to be amplified, monetized, microtargeted, and spread around the world at unprecedented speed and scale. The consequences for democracy, public health, and social harmony are emergent and grave.

Misinformation presents one of the most vexing challenges for content moderation on social media (and off it, such as on cable news) for myriad reasons. Because misinformation can be difficult or controversial to define, policing it risks chilling core political …

“We Do No Such Thing”: 303 Creative V. Elenis And The Future Of First Amendment Challenges To Public Accommodations Laws, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that a business had a right to refuse to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. But properly understood, the decision’s parameters are narrow, and the decision should have minimal effect on public accommodations laws.

Aba Standard 303(C) And Divisive Concepts Legislation And Policies: Challenges And Opportunities, Sherley Cruz, Becky L. Jacobs, Karen L. Tokarz, Kendall Kerew, Andrew King-Ries, Carwina Weng

Scholarly Works

This article by six clinicians discusses the challenges and opportunities of new ABA Standard 303 (c), including the implications of and interactions between Standard 303(c) and “divisive concepts” laws and other threats to representation, academic freedom, and free speech in legal education. The article also highlights the intersection of Standard 303(c) and Standard 303(b)(3), which addresses professional identity formation; discusses opportunities to adapt current curriculum and teaching and create new curricular responses to meet the new accreditation standards and interpretations; and explores ways to resist increasing limitations and find a supportive academic community to sustain hope and resilience.

Busting The Union Buster: Why A Fair Balance Of Employees' Right To Unionize And Employer Free Speech Requires Workplace Meetings Discussing The Employer's Views On Unionization To Be Voluntary, Jennifer L. Murray

Duquesne Law Review

On April 7, 2022, National Labor Relations Board (the "Board") General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo sent shockwaves through American industries when she issued GC Memo 22-04. The memo announced that she would be asking the Board to find a violation of the National Labor Relations Act ("the Act" or "the Wagner Act") for mandatory meetings in which employees are required to listen to employer speech concerning the exercise of their statutory labor rights.¹ Days later, Abruzzo filed a brief in a case pending before the Board, Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, asking the Board to ban such meetings.^{2 …}

Searching For Truth That Speaks To Power: Free Speech And Equality On Campus, Stephen M. Feldman

American University Law Review

University campuses are being rent apart in disputes pitting free expression against equality [read: diversity, equity, and inclusion]. Yet scholarly discussions and university declarations widely agree: While universities should encourage an inclusive educational environment, free-speech principles prohibit universities from restricting or punishing hate speech, group libel, and other forms of offensive expression. This Article argues that this prioritizing of free speech over equality on campus is mistaken. Equality should often be favored over free expression in campus settings. Although Supreme Court precedents are ambiguous, one can reasonably argue that the doctrine allows universities to restrict and punish offensive expression, including …

This Comment Is Gay: How Banning Lgbtq-Themed Books Violates First Amendment Rights, Michael Karam

Upper Level Writing Requirement Research Papers

No abstract provided.

Moral Panic And The First Amendment, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

Debates over free speech in the United States frequently see advocates of strong, broad protections at odds with those who argue that unfettered free speech tends to harm society's most vulnerable. Free speech advocates invoke the marketplace of ideas and argue that the antidote to false or harmful speech is more speech. In response, critics contend that speech itself causes harm and chills counter-speech effectively excluding marginalized groups, including women and LGBTQ people, from discourse altogether. These critics support limitations on robust free speech doctrine targeting speech that harms marginalized communities.

This Article identifies a significant wrinkle in this narrative: …

Content Moderation Regulation As Legal Role-Scripting, Sari Mazzurco

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Lawmakers and scholars concerned with content moderation regulation typically appeal to "analogies" to justify or undermine different forms of regulation. The logic goes: law should afford individuals due process rights against speech platforms because speech platforms are "like" speech governors as a matter of objective reality. Other common analogies include common carriers, publishers, distributors, shopping malls, and bookstores. Commentators attempt to invoke social roles to understand what the content moderation relationship is, what behaviors are "right" and "wrong" within it, and how law should police behavioral deviations. But they do so without relying on foundational sociology theory that explains what …

How To Get The Property Out Of Privacy Law, Jane R. Bambauer

UF Law Faculty Publications

For the last ten years, American rhetoric and state lawmaking has attempted to provide consumers with greater and stickier property interest in their personal information. But the impracticalities of the sticky property model are becoming evident, and will be impossible to ignore as AI becomes more prevalent and useful. This Article critiques the property framework in privacy law, and explains how a risk-based approach can be modernized and implemented instead. An enduring system of privacy laws will manage risks rather than bestowing rights to control and delete information. To do this, data practices should be categorized into safe harbor practices …

Election Integrity And The First Amendment: A Statutory Analysis Of States' Regulations Of Election Deepfakes, Steven Carver

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minnesota's Criminalization Of Assisted Suicide: A Failure To Protect Minnesota Citizens' Right To Free Speech, Haley M. Bauman

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Violence Of Free Speech And Press Metaphors, Erin C. Carroll

Washington and Lee Law Review

Today, our free speech marketplace is often overwhelming, confusing, and even dangerous. Threats, misdirection, and lies abound. Online firestorms lead to offline violence. This Article argues that the way we conceptualize free speech and the free press are partly to blame: our metaphors are hurting us.

The primary metaphor courts have used for a century to describe free speech—the marketplace of ideas—has been linked to violence since its inception. Originating in a case about espionage and revolution, in a dissent written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, a thrice-injured Civil War veteran, the marketplace has been described as a space where competition …

Public Accommodations Laws, Free Speech Challenges, And Limiting Principles In The Wake Of 303 Creative, Michael L. Smith

Faculty Articles

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violated the First Amendment rights of Lorie Smith, a website designer who refused to make wedding websites for same-sex couples. This Article argues that the Court's ruling rested on a vision of state control over speech that was divorced from the law before it. Using this framing of the law to conjure up inapplicable hypothetical scenarios of state-mandated expression, the Court found in Smith's favor. And yet, in responding to the dissent's concerns that the …

Beyond Social Media Analogues, Gregory M. Dickinson

Faculty Articles

The steady flow of social-media cases toward the Supreme Court shows a nation reworking its fundamental relationship with technology. The cases raise a host of questions ranging from difficult to impossible: how to nurture a vibrant public square when a few tech giants dominate the flow of information, how social media can be at the same time free from conformist groupthink and also protected against harmful disinformation campaigns, and how government and industry can cooperate on such problems without devolving toward censorship.

To such profound questions, this Essay offers a comparatively modest contribution—what not to do. Always the lawyer’s instinct …

Courting Censorship, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Has Supreme Court doctrine invited censorship? Not deliberately, of course. Still, it must be asked whether current doctrine has courted censorship — in the same way one might speak of it courting disaster.

The Court has repeatedly declared its devotion to the freedom of speech, so the suggestion that its doctrines have failed to block censorship may seem surprising. The Court’s precedents, however, have left room for government suppression, even to the point of seeming to legitimize it.

This Article is especially critical of the state action doctrine best known from Blum v. Yaretsky. That doctrine mistakenly elevates coercion …

Originalism’S Age Of Ironies, Sherif Girgis

Journal Articles

From the Article

Guns, abortion, religious establishments, Presidential power: While today’s Supreme Court identifies as originalist, it has settled constitutional questions on these and many other issues using history and tradition, not just original meaning. Scholars debate whether this trend can be squared with originalism. Last Term, the originalist Justices joined the fray. A close look at their dueling opinions reveals the divergent paths that originalists take when the method is pressed to its limits. It turns out that the purer one’s originalism at the level of theory, the less it constrains judges in practice. That is especially true for …

What Twenty-First-Century Free Speech Law Means For Securities Regulation, Helen Norton

Notre Dame Law Review

Securities law has long regulated securities-related speech—and until recently, it did so with little, if any, First Amendment controversy. Yet the antiregulatory turn in the Supreme Court’s twenty-first-century Free Speech Clause doctrine has inspired corporate speakers’ increasingly successful efforts to resist regulation in a variety of settings, settings that now include securities law. This doctrinal turn empowers courts, if they so choose, to dismantle the securities regulation framework in place since the Great Depression. At stake are not only recent governmental proposals to require companies to disclose accurate information about their vulnerabilities to climate change and other emerging risks, but …

Cancelling Dr. Seuss, Cathay Y.N. Smith

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced in March 2021 that it would no longer license or publish six of its children’s books because those books portrayed people in racist or culturally stereotypical ways. Since then, the public has learned through news reports and social media that other publishers have similarly reviewed and altered their catalogues of classic children’s works, including withdrawing them from the public, editing them to remove problematic content, or adding disclaimers to warn the public about racially insensitive or outdated content. The public reaction to Dr. Seuss’s decision and these other actions has been largely divided. Some criticized these …

For Freedom Or Full Of It? State Attempts To Silence Social Media, Grace Slicklen

University of Miami Law Review

Freedom of speech is, unsurprisingly, foundational to the “land of the free.” However, the “land of the free” has undergone some changes since the First Amendment’s ratification. Unprecedented technological evolution has ushered in a digital forum in which the volume, speed, and reach of words transcend the Framers’ visions of the First Amendment’s aims. Social media platforms have become central spaces for public discourse, where opportunities to create—and repress—speech are endless. From enabling individuals to freely express their views, to allowing state actors to limit open exchanges, it is about time that the Supreme Court tackles this complex issue of …

Disrupting The Narrative: Diving Deeper Into Section 230 Political Discourse, Koustubh “K.J.” Bagchi, Elizabeth Banker, Ife Ogunleye

Pepperdine Law Review

Online spaces have undoubtedly played a significant role in facilitating discourse and the exchange of information. With this increased discourse, however, digital platforms have also seen a rise in harmful or problematic content shared online––including health misinformation, hate speech, and child sex abuse material, among others. Many commentators have put the blame for this trend on Section 230, arguing that Section 230 has enabled the spread of harmful content and suggesting that Section 230 ought to be amended or replaced. This Essay, by contrast, argues that the current narrative about Section 230 gets it wrong. In reality, Section 230 has …

Texas’ War On Social Media: Censorship Or False Flag, Leni Morales

DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Levels Of Free Speech Scrutiny, Alexander Tsesis

Indiana Law Journal

Inconsistencies abound throughout current exacting, strict, and most exacting scrutiny doctrines. Formalism also runs throughout recent cases that have opportunistically relied on the First Amendment in matters peripherally concerned with core principles of free speech. Jurisprudence that relies on the exacting scrutiny standard remains significantly under-theorized. The uncertainty creates doctrinal flux that shifts from case-to-case. The same unexplained malleability appears in the most exacting scrutiny jurisprudence. The Court, moreover, sometimes refers to these two standards as equivalent to strict scrutiny. On the other hand, during the last decade, and most recently in 2021, various opinions have also used exacting scrutiny …

Comment, Francesca L. Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Let's start with the antecedent question that both the theme of this conference and all three papers in this session present. That is, before we ask how law schools might better advance the freedom of expression on campus, and even before asking what role law schools play in protecting or suppressing free speech more generally, we must ask the first order question: whether freedom of expression at U.S. law schools is indeed imperiled?

There is an underlying assumption in all three papers that something is amiss, that things are not quite at their optimal, that improve- ment is needed. And …

Public School Teachers Who Refuse To Use Preferred Names And Pronouns: A Brief Exploration Of The First Amendment Limitations In K-12 Classrooms, Suzanne Eckes

ConLawNOW

This article focuses on whether a teacher has a First Amendment right under both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution when refusing to use a student’s preferred name or pronoun in a public school classroom. The article begins by briefly summarizing a recent case from Kansas and then examines prior precedent involving teachers’ classroom speech and teachers’ rights to freely exercise their religious rights in public schools. It then briefly highlights how these issues have been addressed in previous pronoun cases and concludes with a discussion of related constitutional issues.