First Amendment Commons^™

Tinkering With Tinker: Why The Supreme Court Must Protect Student Speech Through Social Media, Alexis Roach

Honors Theses and Capstones

The goal of this paper is to address the failing of the Supreme Court in their decision of the case Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.[1]. While the Court defended students’ rights to free speech under the First Amendment in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)[2], they have since restricted that right through a number of cases. While the Court’s decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. protected student speech, the Court failed to provide a standard for application in cases regarding social media in schools. This paper argues that while the Court was correct in …

Attorney-Fee Shifting Is The Solution To Slapping Meritless Claims Out Of Federal Court, Gleisy Sopena

FIU Law Review

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPPs”) are meritless claims brought against individuals or corporations to silence them for exercising protected speech under the First Amendment. In response to the chilling effects of these SLAPPsuits, State legislatures have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to quickly dismiss these meritless claims and protect the targets of these suits. These anti-SLAPP statutes have two prominent components: a special motion to dismiss and an attorney fee-shifting provision that is dependent on prevailing on the special motion set forth in the statute. Federal courts sitting in diversity are divided over whether the special motion standards set forth in …

Manipulation And The First Amendment, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh

Georgia Law Review

Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …

Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has long deprived immigrants of the full protection of substantive constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, leaving undocumented immigrants exposed to detention and deportation if they earn the government’s ire through political speech. The best remedy for this would be for the Supreme Court to reconsider its approach. This Essay offers an interim alternative borrowed from an analogous problem that arises under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed in a removal proceeding only if the Fourth Amendment violation was “egregious.” Yet, some circuit …

Immigration Detention And Dissent: The Role Of The First Amendment On The Road To Abolition, Alina Das

Georgia Law Review

The movement to abolish slavery relied heavily on the exercise and protection of enslaved and formerly enslaved people’s freedom of speech against robust efforts to suppress their messaging. The same is true in the context of the movement to abolish immigration detention. For decades, people in immigration detention, formerly detained people, and their allies have exercised their First Amendment rights to expose the conditions of their confinement and demand their freedom. In response to their protests and other forms of individual and collective expression, detained and formerly detained immigrants have faced suppression and retaliation, threatening not only their right to …

Compelled Unionism In The Private Sector After Janus: Why Unions Should Not Profit From Dissenting Employees, Giovanna Bonafede

Catholic University Law Review

This Note examines the impact of the 2018 landmark labor law case Janus v. AFSCME. Janus held it unconstitutional under the First Amendment to require public sector employees to pay fees to a union to which they are not a member. The Supreme Court based their decision on the idea that compelling public employees to subsidize union speech to which they disagreed violated their free speech rights. The author argues that the Court’s holding in Janus should be extended to protect the free speech rights of private sector employees through a finding of state action in the private unionized …

Free Speech Has Gotten Very Expensive: Rethinking Political Speech Regulation In A Post-Truth World, John A. Barrett, Jr.

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Protecting free speech has been a foundational principle of American democracy since the nation’s founding. A core element of free speech has long been a prohibition on regulating political speech. The principle behind this protection holds that citizens are free to make whatever political pronouncements they wish and that their speech shall remain free from government suppression. Even within the limited exceptions to unfettered political speech, like defamation or libel, the speech is not banned but may merely result in liability. A premise underlying this view is that competing viewpoints, by being made available to us all, will allow …

Model Rule 8.4(G) And The Profession’S Core Values Problem, Michael Ariens

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Model Rule 8.4(g) declares it misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the rule in 2016 in large part to effectuate the third of its four mission goals: Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity. The ABA adopted these goals in 2008, and they continue to serve as ABA’s statement of its mission.

A …

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

A “License To Kale”—Free Speech Challenges To Occupational Licensing Of Nutrition And Dietetics, Taylor J. Newman, Angela E. Surrett

St. Mary's Law Journal

State licensing of medical professions has occurred for over a century. Recently, these licensure statutes have been subject to First Amendment challenges, alleging occupational licensure impermissibly restricts freedom of speech. This Comment addresses these free speech challenges, arguing occupational licensure statutes, at least for medical professions, only incidentally impacts free speech—if at all—by permissibly regulating medical professional conduct necessarily requiring speech. Within, the authors ultimately describe, demonstrate, and recommend a legal framework, the other factor/personal nexus approach. This approach helps determine the point at which speech becomes regulable professional conduct subject to licensing, utilizing the nutrition and dietetics profession, and …

Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers

Arkansas Law Review

In a free speech and free exercise case involving the Business Leaders in Christ at the University of Iowa, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the Southern District of Iowa by holding that University officials should not be granted qualified immunity based on the student organization’s free speech claim.

How Should We Regulate The Internet? A Proposal, Natalie Petruzelli

The Review: A Journal of Undergraduate Student Research

With the invention of the internet providing newfangled methods of spreading information around the world, misinformation has also found home in these pathways, disrupting the general public’s ability to discern fact from fiction and creating divides in society. Regulation must be enacted to stop the effects of misinformation, but the efforts of technology companies and the general public have been insufficient thus far. Regulatory control of the internet and its content should be the responsibility of the government, based on their constitutional right to intervene under certain circumstances and the fact that previous efforts by other parties to mitigate misinformation …

Campus Free Speech In The Mirror Of Rising Anti-Semitism, Harry G. Hutchison

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

The Bumble Bill: A Critical Analysis On Texas’S New Law Taking Indecent Exposure Regulations Online, Ashley B. Huron

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …

Free Speech In The Balance: Judicial Sanctions And Frivolous Slapp Suits, Shine Sean Tu, Nicholas F. Stump

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The balance between free speech and access to courts in defamation tort actions is fraught with public policy concerns. On one hand, plaintiffs should have unencumbered access to the justice system to remedy real harms brought upon them by defamatory statements. However, defamation suits should not be wielded to suppress the constitutionally protected free speech rights of news organizations and of concerned citizens that are vital for well-functioning democracies. This Article argues for a new type of remedy, namely enhanced Rule 11 attorney sanctions, such as suspension or debarment, that should be available to defendants of defamation suits brought by …

Comic Books, The First Amendment, And The “Best Test” For Right Of Publicity Issues, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Defining Antisemitism, Mark Goldfeder

Scholarly Works

Antisemitic harassment is illegal, but without a standard definition of what ‘antisemitism’ includes, that idea is almost meaningless. That is why state legislatures and university administrators across the country are debating enacting policies that adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This Article will illustrate precisely how a state bill or a university policy utilizing the IHRA definition for assessing motivation when analyzing discriminatory conduct claims would actually function, so that critics can no longer vaguely claim that such policies would somehow offend the First Amendment. It will also explain the difference between protected political speech and …

Freedom Of The Press In U.S. Protests, Abigail Rosenthal

Human Rights Brief

No abstract provided.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn't Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Aswad

Faculty Articles

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

From Banned Books To Mail Censorship, Free Speech All But Ends At The Prison Doors, Meghan Holden

Mitchell Hamline Law Journal of Public Policy and Practice

No abstract provided.

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate or rational …

Transparency And The First, Mark Fenster

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Slapps Across America, Jack Toscano

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan was meant to protect our fundamental right to free speech from defamation lawsuits. However, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAPPS, continue to chill free speech through weak but expensive to defend defamation lawsuits. In response to SLAPPs many states have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that are meant to identify SLAPPs, quickly dismiss SLAPPS, and punish plaintiffs who bring SLAPPs. A difficult issue for federal courts throughout the country is whether these state anti-SLAPP statutes should apply in federal courts. This Note examines the Supreme Court opinions in Shady …

Free Speech And Democracy: A Primer For Twenty-First Century Reformers, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton

Publications

Left unfettered, the twenty-first-century speech environment threatens to undermine critical pieces of the democratic project. Speech operates today in ways unimaginable not only to the First Amendment’s eighteenth-century writers but also to its twentieth-century champions. Key among these changes is that speech is cheaper and more abundant than ever before, and can be exploited — by both government and powerful private actors alike — as a tool for controlling others’ speech and frustrating meaningful public discourse and democratic outcomes.

The Court’s longstanding First Amendment doctrine rests on a model of how speech works that is no longer accurate. This invites …

Free Speech In The Modern Age, [email protected]

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Stanley Fish, The First, And The Life Of The Law, Samuel A. Terilli, Jr.

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Fourth Amendment’S Forgotten Free-Speech Dimensions, Aya Gruber

Publications

No abstract provided.

Race And The First Amendment: A Compendium Of Resources, Solomon F. Worlds, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

This article provides summaries of law review articles and books that consider the complex relationship between racial justice and free speech. It seeks to assist law students, legal scholars, judges, and practitioners to think more deeply about the intersection between these critically important values. It describes scholarship that views these values as complementary, but also scholarship that views them as conflicting.