First Amendment Commons^™

Is There An Obligation To Listen?, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article thoroughly considers the question whether the constitutional guarantee of "freedom of speech" includes an obligation to listen. It first reviews the scopes of the right to speak, the right to listen, and the right to be left alone from things other than unwanted speech, and the relevance to each of physical location. It concludes that, consistent with constitutional doctrine and the Court's articulations, the government's ability to protect individuals from unwanted speech should not vary according to the listener's location. After noting that the actual protection of unwilling listeners may differ because of the different physical realities of …

Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

To get right to the point: Mr. Hacker does not disagree that the Establishment Clause would, in the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment, have prohibited Congress from passing a nationwide religion law like RFRA. He believes, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment has in part repealed the First. Of course, he doesn't want to say repealed. The language of repeal is not pleasant to the ears of those who would like to forget about First Amendment antidisestablishmentarianism. The Fourteenth Amendment did not "repeal any aspect of the text of the [Establishment] Clause," Hacker says, but only "change[d] profoundly the meaning of …

The Electronic Media And The Flight From First Amendment Doctrine: Justice Breyer's New Balancing Approach, Jerome A. Barron

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Contemporary First Amendment issues in cases involving the electronic media transcend traditional conflicts between the government and the speaker. The speaker is not easy to identify. Listeners, programmer and medium operators or distributors all have competing claims to First Amendment protection. To determine whose interests shall prevail, courts increasingly seek a methodology that accounts for these warring interests. Justice Breyer, along with Justice Souter and, in some respects, Justice Stevens, have been instrumental in reviving balancing as a First Amendment approach in these situations.

In two recent First Amendment cable television cases Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (Turner II) …

A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker

Michigan Law Review

Professor Jed Rubenfeld has offered in these pages an ingenious explanation for why the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne v. Flores. Rubenfeld finds in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause a historical and inherent principle he calls "antidisestablishmentarianism": a prohibition on acts of Congress that "disestablish" religion in the several states. Rubenfeld reads the Establishment Clause as proscribing not only congressional acts that "establish" religion but also all congressional acts that "dictate a position on religion for states," including laws designed to ensure that states abide by the requirements …

What's In A Word? A Comparative Analysis Of Article I, § 12 Of The New York State Constitution And The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution As Interpreted By The New York Court Of Appeals And The United States Supreme Court, Douglas Holden Wigdor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 5: Speech And Elections, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Doma: An Unconstitutional Establishment Of Fundamentalist Christianity, James M. Donovan

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

According to the text of the Act, DOMA's purposes are "to define and protect the institution of marriage," where marriage is defined to exclude same-sex partners. To be constitutionally valid under the Establishment Clause, this notion that heterosexual marriages require "protection" from gay and lesbian persons must spring from a secular and not religious source. This Article posits that DOMA has crossed this forbidden line between the secular and the religious. DOMA, motivated and supported by fundamentalist Christian ideology, and lacking any genuine secular goals or justifications, betrays the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Section 1983 Litigation, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Section 3: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Section 6: Freedom Of Speech And Press, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Turner Broadcasting, The First Amendment , And The New Electronic Delivery Systems, Henry Geller

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

After ducking the issue of the First Amendment status of cable television for years, the United States Supreme Court rendered its most important decision concerning the regulation of the new electronic media in Turner Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC. Turner involved the constitutionality of the "must-carry" provisions of the 1992 Cable Act (the "Act" or "Cable Act") which require cable systems to carry specified local broadcast television stations. While cable television began over four decades ago as a community antenna service, it changed drastically after the advent of satellite in the mid-1970's to also provide scores of satellite-delivered programs and to …

Initiative Petition Reforms And The First Amendment, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Equality And Freedom Of Speech (Eighteenth Annual Law Review Symposium: Demise Of The First Amendment? Focus On Rico And Hate Crime Litigation), Terrance Sandalow

Other Publications

The editors responsible for today's symposium have posed an alarming question: whether we are witnessing the demise of the First Amendment. I want to dispel at the outset any anxiety the question may have aroused. The First Amendment is alive and well; indeed, it is thriving. I believe, though I cannot prove, that public respect for the values it expresses has never been greater than it has been in recent years. Whether or not I am correct in that belief, however, it is certain that constitutional protections against governmental efforts to limit speech and other forms of expressive activity are …

Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech, Offensive Speech, And Public Discourse In America, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

In this article, Professor Eberle discusses several limitations on governmental power to regulate public discourse. After examining the United States Supreme Court decisions of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paula nd Wisconsin v. Mitchell, Professor Eberle concludes that government should refrain from regulating speech itself. Rather, any restrictions should focus strictly on the problematic conduct underlying the speech which justifies regulation. Professor Eberle also concludes that the Court has implicitly recognized two distinct subcategories of "content" discrimination and viewpoint discrimination. Both subcategories are presumptively unconstitutional and nominally subject to conventional strict scrutiny. The Court, however, finds viewpoint discrimination more dangerous …

Voice In Government: The People, Emily Calhoun

Publications

No abstract provided.

Section 3: Free Speech And Press, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Starting From Scratch: The First Amendment Reporter-Source Privilege And The Doctrine Of Incidental Restrictions, Marcus A. Asner

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note examines reporters' claims to a First Amendment reporter-source privilege in light of First Amendment doctrine as a whole. Part I briefly explains the current state of reporter-source privileges and the policies behind them. Part II then attempts to identify doctrinal support for the press's claim to a First Amendment privilege. Part II rejects the notion that the First Amendment affords special protection to the press as an institution. A reporter's status as a member of the institutional media is not irrelevant, however, and the well-established principle that the government may not target or single out the press for …

Strangers On A Train, Peirre N. Leval

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis

Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And The Assault On Genius, Anne E. Gilson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius by Edward de Grazia

The Importance Of A Contextual Approach To Libel Law: The Impact Of Immuno Ag. V. Moor-Jankowski And Milkovich V. Lorain Journal Co., Margaret Chan

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Silence And The Word, Paul Campos

Publications

No abstract provided.

Advocacy And Scholarship, Paul F. Campos

Publications

The apex of American legal thought is embodied in two types of writings: the federal appellate opinion and the law review article. In this Article, the author criticizes the whole enterprise of doctrinal constitutional law scholarship, using a recent U.S. Supreme Court case and a Harvard Law Review article as quintessential examples of the dominant genre. In a rhetorical tour de force, the author argues that most of modern constitutional scholarship is really advocacy in the guise of scholarship. Such an approach to legal scholarship may have some merit as a strategic move towards a political end; however, it has …

Section 4: Moot Court: Church Of The Lukumi Babulu Aye V. City Of Hialeah, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Halluctinations Of Neutrality In The Oregon Peyote Case, Harry F. Tepker Jr.

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Structural Free Exercise, Mary Ann Glendon, Raul F. Yanes

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this article, we analyze the development of case law interpreting the religious freedom language of the First Amendment from the 1940s to the eve of the rights revolution as a casualty of the piecemeal approach to incorporation, compounded by a series of judicial lapses and oversights. Part II deals with the fate of the Religion Clause in the era of the rights revolution, when the free exercise and establishment provisions were deployed in the service of a constitutional agenda to which they were, in themselves, largely peripheral. The current period of doctrinal change is the subject …

Academic Freedom And The First Amendment In The Supreme Court Of The United States: An Unhurried Historical Review, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The Lessons Of Miller And Hudnut: On Proposing A Pornography Ordinance That Passes Constitutional Muster, Martin Karo, Marcia Mcbrian

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note first reviews the evolution of obscenity law, concentrating on the modern obscenity test formulated in Miller v. California, including its requirement that any obscenity prosecution must be based on a state statute, not merely on the common law. It then examines the elements of the Miller test, arguing that legislatures may determine statewide "community standards" of patently offensive depictions of sexual conduct and discusses the permissibility of legislative expansion of pornography regulation beyond the present boundaries. Part II examines the federal courts' analysis of the civil rights-based antipornography ordinance passed in Indianapolis. Part III suggests standards for …

Harry Kalven, The Proust Of The First Amendment, Lee Bollinger

Michigan Law Review

A Review of A Worth Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America by Harry Kalven, Jr.

The Apologetics Of Suppression: The Regulation Of Pornography As Act And Idea, Steven G. Gey

Michigan Law Review

The first three parts of this article discuss in detail the relationship between the Supreme Court's obscenity rulings and the academic theories that have been offered to bolster the conclusions reached by the Court in this area. Part IV of the article considers a contrary theory of free expression that requires constitutional protection for the dissemination and possession of pornography. In this section I argue that the present efforts to ban pornography are directly linked to a tolerance model of free expression. The tolerance model, which is usually contrasted with an analytical approach characterized by Holmesian skepticism, necessarily relies upon …