First Amendment Commons^™

Silencing Students: How Courts Have Failed To Protect Professional Students’ First Amendment Speech Rights, Shanelle Doher

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Over the past two decades, social media has dramatically changed the way people communicate. With the increased popularity of virtual communication, online speech has, in many ways, blurred the boundaries for where and when speech begins and ends. The distinction between on campus and off campus student speech has become particularly murky given the normalization of virtual learning environments as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court clarified that students retain their First Amendment rights on campus but that schools may sanction speech that materially and substantially …

Freedom Of Algorithmic Expression, Inyoung Cheong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Can content moderation on social media be considered a form of speech? If so, would government regulation of content moderation violate the First Amendment? These are the main arguments of social media companies after Florida and Texas legislators attempted to restrict social media platforms’ authority to de-platform objectionable content.

This article examines whether social media companies’ arguments have valid legal grounds. To this end, the article proposes three elements to determine that algorithms classify as “speech:” (1) the algorithms are designed to communicate messages; (2) the relevant messages reflect cognitive or emotive ideas beyond mere operational matters; and (3) they …

Battlegrounds For Banned Books: The First Amendment And Public School Libraries, Jensen Rehn

Notre Dame Law Review

Embedded in each conversation about banning books are arguments that use legal terminology. A brief conversation about banned books with a librarian will likely lead to a discussion of the “Library Bill of Rights” published by the ALA. No one is bound by the ALA’s Bill of Rights, which lacks a method of enforcement. Thus, the question remains: what is the legal landscape of banning books? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not provided a clear precedent about banning books from public school libraries. In fact, the Supreme Court has only taken cases about libraries on three occasions, each of which …

Antimatters: The Curious Case Of Confederate Monuments, Jeremiah Chin

Articles

Confederate monuments sit at a crossroads of speech frameworks as contested government speech, as concrete edifices of hate speech, and as key protest sites. The interplay of state law and speech doctrines in states like Alabama and Florida has cemented monuments as physical representations of government speech that municipal governments cannot speak on. To understand the confounding ways that doctrinal principles take on inverse implications, this Article draws on the concept of antimatter in physics—matter that has the same mass and properties of ordinary matter but with the opposite charge—to analyze doctrinal intersections of constitutional law that are made to …

The Disembodied First Amendment, Nathan Cortez, William M. Sage

Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment doctrine is becoming disembodied—increasingly detached from human speakers and listeners. Corporations claim that their speech rights limit government regulation of everything from product labeling to marketing to ordinary business licensing. Courts extend protections to commercial speech that ordinarily extended only to core political and religious speech. And now, we are told, automated information generated for cryptocurrencies, robocalling, and social media bots are also protected speech under the Constitution. Where does it end? It begins, no doubt, with corporate and commercial speech. We show, however, that heightened protection for corporate and commercial speech is built on several “artifices” - …

Disciplining Doctors: A Call For Caution When Responding To Physicians' Counter-Consensus Speech In The Time Of Covid-19, Timothy Macdonnell

Scholarly Articles

The COVID-19 pandemic affected nearly every aspect of life in the United States, including most notably, work-life, home-life, and community-life. During the pandemic, the government took extraordinary steps to try and reduce the spread of the disease by closing businesses, mandating the wearing of masks, and requiring vaccines. Government officials repeatedly justified their actions by stating that they were "following the science." However not all members of the scientific/medical community agreed with these actions. Some of these counter-consensus opinions were labeled mis/dis/mal/information.

As the COVID-19 pandemic dragged on, calls to punish doctors for COVID-19 misinformation increased. Some doctors who claimed …

Private Ownership Of Public Facts: Docudramas, Deals, And Life Story Rights, Dave Fagundes, Jorge L. Contreras

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

From Elizabeth Taylor to Mike Tyson, celebrities have claimed ownership of their personae. But while the right of publicity and other laws give individuals the right to control commercial exploitation of their images, voices, mannerisms and taglines, the law stops short of recognizing a property interest in the events of their lives. On the contrary, the First Amendment protects producers of expressive works when telling non-defamatory stories about real people. The intuition that exists among celebrities and lay persons alike that individuals own their “life stories” has been fueled by the decades-old Hollywood practice of “acquiring” life story rights from …

Unconstitutional Police Pretexts, Nadia Banteka

Scholarly Publications

This Article unearths the pernicious effects of pretextual policing on civil rights and democratic principles. The Fourth Amendment’s pretext doctrine has faced widespread criticism for enabling police to shield the real reasons for searches and seizures from constitutional scrutiny. In its ruling on Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court established that police actions, not their motivations, are the relevant factor in determining constitutionality of searches and seizures. As a result, police can use ostensibly legal justifications as a cover for unconstitutional conduct. This article breaks new ground arguing that pretextual policing extends beyond searches and seizures. It reveals a …

Campbell V. Reisch: The Dangers Of The Campaign Loophole In Social Media Blocking Litigation, Clare R. Norins, Mark Bailey

Scholarly Works

Since 2016, social media blocking by government officials has been a lively battleground for First Amendment rights of free speech and petition. Government officials increasingly rely on social media to communicate with the public while ever greater numbers of private individuals are voicing their opinions and petitioning for change on government officials' interactive social media accounts. Perhaps not surprisingly, this has prompted many government officials to block those users whose comments they deem to be critical or offensive. But such speech regulation by a government actor introduces viewpoint discrimination—a cardinal sin under the First Amendment.

In 2019, three United States …

States Have Long Tried To Ban Ideas From The Classroom: The Current Road Brings A Fresh Evil, Leonard Niehoff

Other Publications

Efforts by state and local officials to ban ideas and books from public school classrooms are nothing new. Recent attempts to do so, however, have a uniquely pernicious characteristic. The current wave of bans doesn’t just seek to censor thoughts or words; it seeks to censor identity.

Nonprofits, Taxes, And Speech, Lloyd Hitoshi Mayer

Journal Articles

Federal tax law is of two minds when it comes to speech by nonprofits. The tax benefits provided to nonprofits are justified in significant part because they provide nonprofits great discretion in choosing the specific ends and means to pursue, thereby promoting diversity and pluralism. But current law withholds some of these tax benefits if a nonprofit engages in certain types of political speech. Legislators have also repeatedly, if unsuccessfully, sought to expand these political speech restrictions in various ways. And some commentators have proposed denying tax benefits to groups engaged in other types of disfavored speech, including hate speech …

Investigative Deception Across Social Contexts, 22-14 Knight First Amend. Inst. (Dec. 16, 2022), Alan K. Chen

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This essay explores investigative deceptions, intentional lies used to gather information that is in the public interest, across different areas of law. In some contexts, such falsehoods are viewed as producing great social benefits. For example, civil rights laws embrace intentional lies by testers to smoke out discriminatory conduct. Under federal labor law, union 'salts' are allowed to hide their identity and acquire jobs with employers whose workers they wish to organize. In most cases, law enforcement officers may engage in elaborate subterfuges when operating 'stings' and interrogating witnesses. In these contexts, the law permits a person to lie in …

Content Moderation As Surveillance, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

Technology platforms are the new governments, and content moderation is the new law, or so goes a common refrain. As platforms increasingly turn toward new, automated mechanisms of enforcing their rules, the apparent power of the private sector seems only to grow. Yet beneath the surface lies a web of complex relationships between public and private authorities that call into question whether platforms truly possess such unilateral power. Law enforcement and police are exerting influence over platform content rules, giving governments a louder voice in supposedly “private” decisions. At the same time, law enforcement avails itself of the affordances of …

The First Amendment And The Regulation Of Speech Intermediaries, Shaun B. Spencer

Marquette Law Review

Calls to regulate social media platforms abound on both sides of the political spectrum. Some want to prevent platforms from deplatforming users or moderating content, while others want them to deplatform more users and moderate more content. Both types of regulation will draw First Amendment challenges. As Justices Thomas and Alito have observed, applying settled First Amendment doctrine to emerging regulation of social media platforms presents significant analytical challenges.

The Power Of Vulnerability In Promoting A Sense Of Belonging: The Perspective Of A First-Generation American, Karin Mika

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

It is my intention that students teach each other through really getting to know one another and finding commonality in each other’s experiences. Most of us live in a social bubble, partially because we feel vulnerable in worlds where we perceive that we do not belong. By sharing vulnerabilities, we are able to expand our world to not only understand our commonalities, but to get a new view of what we thought was inalterable. By sharing my own experience as an out-sider, I am better able to encourage students to consider more deeply the opinions of others and to learn …

Columbia Law Experts Submit Two Briefs To Supreme Court In Free Speech/Lgb Rights Case, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School faculty and policy teams submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court on Friday in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case the Court will decide next term.

Inherent Powers And The Limits Of Public Health Fake News, Michael P. Goodyear

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In a Vero Beach, Florida, supermarket, Susan Wiles rode her motorized cart through the produce aisle. In any year other than 2020 or 2021, this would have been a routine trip to the grocery store. But in 2020, Mrs. Wiles was missing an accessory that had become ubiquitous in society during that year: a face mask. Despite causing a commotion, Mrs. Wiles stood by her decision, claiming that the concerns about COVID-19 were overblown: “I don’t fall for this. It’s not what they say it is.” Mrs. Wiles’ statement is emblematic of the year 2020. This is not the …

Anti-Speech Acts And The First Amendment, Richard K. Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

In many states today, there are laws on the books designed to protect the legitimacy and fairness of elections by barring the knowing or reckless dissemination of demonstrably false statements. Regulating this kind of deliberate deception protects the public against the erosion of First Amendment freedoms – such as the freedom to think and express one’s own thoughts and to meaningfully deliberate in an electoral process free from deliberate efforts to flood the zone of public discourse with confusion and mistrust based on deliberate and provable falsehoods. Some of these regulations, however, have been successfully challenged on First Amendment grounds. …

Reckless Abandon: The Shadow Of Model Rule 8.4(G) And A Path Forward, Margaret Tarkington

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In August 2016, the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) Board of Governors approved Model Rule of Professional Conduct (“MRPC”) 8.4(g) as a model for state adoption. The Rule makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in “harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” Curbing harassment and discrimination is a critically important goal. However, the actual Rule as promulgated reaches far beyond prohibiting sexual harassment and unlawful discrimination. Instead the comments to the Rule define discrimination and harassment broadly to prohibit speech …

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

Aba Model Rule 8.4(G), Discriminatory Speech, And The First Amendment, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4(g), which targets certain speech and conduct that are based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” In particular, according to the accompanying comment, Rule 8.4(g) reaches speech that is “derogatory and demeaning” or that “manifests bias or prejudice towards others” and is “harmful” (including, presumably, emotionally harmful). This rule targets a significant amount of speech that would be constitutionally protected if it were uttered by a nonlawyer. This article argues that there is no justification for treating lawyers differently from others in many …

Lost In The Bubble, Jethro K. Lieberman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Expression Of Lgbtq Student Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity In The K-12 Educational System, Brian Boggs

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

A First Amendment Law For Migrant Emancipation, Daniel Morales

Georgia Law Review

The First Amendment promises to change our world, but like any legal doctrine, its radical potential is stymied by the status quo bias of the legal system that administers it. For migrants, I urge here, this guarantor of free speech and expression does even less than it does for other subordinated groups. The formal and informal disabilities that migrants face in the public square—like the omnipresent threat of deportation—make existing First Amendment doctrine a weak and unreliable ally in the fight for migrants’ rights. It is possible to imagine another, emancipatory First Amendment law that might better facilitate the alteration …

Fear Foreigners, And Free Expression: A Brief Reflection On Ideological Exclusion And Deportation In The United States, Julia Rose Kraut

Georgia Law Review

“Why should we be afraid of this man and his ideas?” asked Secretary of State William P. Rogers, referring to Belgian, Marxist economist Ernest Mandel.1 In 1969, Mandel applied for a nonimmigrant visa to visit the United States after receiving invitations to speak at several American colleges and universities, including Amherst College, Columbia University, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the New School for Social Research.2 Mandel had received visas to visit the United States twice before: one in 1962 and another in 1968.3 Yet, this time, Mandel’s application for a visa was denied.4

The State Department informed Mandel …

Centering Noncitizens' Free Speech, Gregory P. Margarian

Georgia Law Review

First Amendment law pays little attention to noncitizens’ free speech interests. Perhaps noncitizens simply enjoy the same First Amendment rights as citizens. However, ambivalent and sometimes hostile Supreme Court precedents create serious cause for concern. This Essay advocates moving noncitizens’ free speech from the far periphery to the center of First Amendment law. Professor Magarian posits that noncitizens epitomize a condition of speech inequality, in which social conditions and legal doctrines combine to create distinctive, unwarranted barriers to full participation in public discourse. First Amendment law can ameliorate speech inequality by promoting an ethos of free speech obligation, amplifying the …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Scholarly Works

The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times, LP v. Waldrip, a lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas state anti-discrimination bill, has been widely misreported and generally misunderstood. While the decision was actually very narrow, case-specific, and ripe for review, the misleading information presented to the public has led to speculation and fear that similar anti-discrimination legislation in dozens of other states might somehow be constitutionally deficient. This essay will clarify what actually happened in the Arkansas case, and explain why legislators and advocates around the country do not have to worry about this very limited opinion affecting the legality of …

Tinkering With The Schoolhouse Gate: The Future Of Student Speech After Mahanoy Area School District V. B.L., Victoria R. Bonds

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

When the Supreme Court last created a rule about students’ First Amendment rights, MySpace was the most popular social media platform. Students’ use of social media and technology has radically changed since then, and it is time the First Amendment case law reflects that. With the transition to online learning after the COVID-19 pandemic and overall increased reliance on technology, students need clear answers about when school officials can punish them for their social media posts.

The Supreme Court had a chance to clarify First Amendment student speech law this year in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., but …

Free Speech, Social Media, And Public Universities: How The First Amendment Limits University Sanctions For Online Expression And Empowers Students, Staff, And Faculty, Eric T. Kasper

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Distrust, Negative First Amendment Theory, And The Regulation Of Lies, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the relationship between “negative” First Amendment theory—rooted in distrust of the government’s potential for regulatory abuse—and the government’s regulation of lies. Negative First Amendment theory explains why many lies are protected from governmental regulation—even when the regulation neither punishes nor chills valuable speech (as was the case, for example, of the statute at issue in United States v. Alvarez). But negative theory, like any theory, also needs limiting principles that explain when the government’s regulation is constitutionally justifiable.

In my view, we engage in the principled application of negative theory when we invoke it in (the …