First Amendment Commons^™

"Duty-Defining Power" And The First Amendment's Civil Domain, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

In Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability,1 Daniel Solove and Neil Richards attempt something truly ambitious. The authors seek to map coherent boundaries for the First Amendment’s vast civil domain. Their project merits serious attention. Currently, different rules apply to civil liability for speech depending on whether the liability arises in tort, contract, or property. Solove and Richards claim that these boundaries are unworkable, under-theorized, and in some cases destined to collide. They develop a framework for mapping the First Amendment’s civil domain that is based upon a distinction regarding the type of power the state exercises in various civil …

Judicial Review, Local Values, And Pluralism, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

At the Federalist Society's 2008 National Student Symposium, a panel of scholars was asked to consider the question, does pervasive judicial review threaten to destroy local identity by homogenizing community norms? The answer to this question is yes, pervasive judicial review certainly does threaten local identity, because such review can homogenize[e] community norms, either by dragging them into conformity with national, constitutional standards or (more controversially) by subordinating them to the reviewers' own commitments. It is important to recall, however, that while it is true that an important feature of our federalism is local variation in laws and values, it …

Yellow Snow On Sacred Sites: A Failed Application Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Joshua A. Edwards

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is It Really Possible To Do The Kessel Run In Less Than Twelve Parsecs And Should It Matter? Science And Film And Its Policy Implications, Dov Greenbaum

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The entertainment media influences our lives in a myriad of different ways--from the way we dress, to the language we use, to the products we buy. What might be less obvious are its influences on national policies. This Article, an introductory foray into the effects of media on policy, focuses on the effect that movies have on science policies in the United States and around the world. Through an analysis of both classic and recent blockbuster films and concurrent events involving science policies, this Article argues that Hollywood exerts an inordinate amount of influence on national science policies, and even …

A House Divided: Earl Caldwell, The New York Times, And The Quest For A Testimonial Privilege, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

In the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect journalists who refuse to reveal their confidential sources or news gathering product in response to a federal grand jury subpoena. That decision has remained vital for 35 years and has reverberated through a number of recent high-profile cases. Despite some form of protection in nearly every state court, reporters haled before a federal judge may have no recourse save prison. Devastating as Branzburg has been for the so-called journalist's privilege, its negative impact has been far broader. Branzburg is one of …

The Rules Against Scandal And What They Mean For The First Amendment’S Religion Clauses, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Like A Hole In The Head, Lief H. Carter

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is There A Paradox In Amending A Sacred Text?, Beau Breslin

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Biblical Interpretation, Constitutional Interpretation, And Ignoring Text, Henry L. Chambers Jr.

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Atmospheric Harms In Constitutional Law, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Dueling First Amendments: Government As Funder, As Speaker, And The Establishment Clause, Carol Nackenoff

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rethinking Free Speech And Civil Liability, Neil M. Richards, Daniel J. Solove

Scholarship@WashULaw

One of the most important and unresolved quandaries of First Amendment jurisprudence involves when civil liability for speech will trigger First Amendment protections. When speech results in civil liability, two starkly opposing rules are potentially applicable. Since New York Times v. Sullivan, the First Amendment requires heightened protection against tort liability for speech, such as defamation and invasion of privacy. But in other contexts involving civil liability for speech, the First Amendment provides virtually no protection. According to Cohen v. Cowles, there is no First Amendment scrutiny for speech restricted by promissory estoppel and contract. The First Amendment rarely requires …

The Hidden Dichotomy In The Law Of Morality, Justin P. Nichols

Campbell Law Review

This Comment will begin by exploring the dichotomy itself, and then carefully distinguishing civil and religious morality. The analysis will then examine Lawrence and clarify how the opinion affected the dichotomy. Next, this Comment will apply the post-Lawrence understanding of the rational basis test to several issues of concern raised by opponents of the decision. Finally, this Comment will speculate as to the possible implications of Lawrence for moral issues lying on the horizon.

The Forgotten Freedom Of Assembly, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The freedom of assembly has been at the heart of some of the most important social movements in American history: antebellum abolitionism, women's suffrage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the labor movement in the Progressive Era and after the New Deal, and the civil rights movement. Claims of assembly stood against the ideological tyranny that exploded during the first Red Scare in the years surrounding the First World War and the second Red Scare of 1950s McCarthyism. Abraham Lincoln once called 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' part of 'the Constitutional substitute for revolution'. In 1939, the …

Making Sense Of Schaumburg: Seeking Coherence In First Amendment Charitable Solicitation Law, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court shaped its approach to charitable solicitation in a trilogy of cases in the 1980s: Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co. (1984), and Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina (1988). Owing largely to ambiguity surrounding the concepts of content analysis, tiered scrutiny, and commercial speech emerging during that era, the Court failed to articulate a coherent framework for evaluating regulations of charitable solicitation. The result has left the Court without a clear rationale for the value of charitable solicitation and lower courts …

Conversations With Renowned Professors On The Future Of Copyright, James Boyle, Elizabeth Townsend Gard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Guns As Smut: Defending The Home-Bound Second Amendment, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees a personal, individual right to keep and bear arms. But the Court left lower courts and legislatures adrift on the fundamental question of scope. While the Court stated in dicta that some regulation may survive constitutional scrutiny, it left the precise contours of the right, and even the method by which to determine those contours, for 'future evaluation."

This Article offers a provocative proposal for tackling the issue of Second Amendment scope, one tucked in many dresser drawers across the nation: Treat the Second Amendment …

Long Live The Lie Bill!, Lucila I. Van Dam

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

What successful defamation plaintiffs typically desire and doctrinally deserve is to have their reputations restored. Presently, however, a plaintiff who has established that she was defamed by the defendant is entitled only to an award of damages, which does nothing to restore reputation. This Note proposes that in addition to a damages award, courts-- if they are to take seriously their obligation to compensate the plaintiff-- should order the defendant to retract the defamatory statement. Contrary to the prevailing view, this Note argues that the proposed retraction order does not jeopardize the First Amendment guarantee of free expression.

Giving Dissenters Back Their Rights: How The White House Presidential Advance Manual Changes The First Amendment And Standing Debates, Kimberly Albrecht-Taylor

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Fleeting Expletives" Are The Tip Of The Iceberg: Fallout From Exposing The Arbitrary And Capricious Nature Of Indecency Regulation, Dave E. Hutchinson

Federal Communications Law Journal

On November 4, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, which centers on whether or the FCC's policy allowing fleeting expletives to be found actionably indecent is arbitrary and capricious. The Second Circuit found that the fleeting expletives policy is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of administrative law. The Supreme Court decision will provide much needed guidance for what constitutes a reasoned basis in the indecency regime's contextual approach. This Note argues that--despite the FCC's recognition that time and context changes the meaning of language-the FCC's indecency regime is at loggerheads with broadcasters because …

Leave Me Alone! The Delicate Balance Of Privacy And Commercial Speech In The Evolving Do-Not-Call Registry, Andrew L. Sullivant

Federal Communications Law Journal

In 2004, the Tenth Circuit held that although the newly enacted do-not-call registry restricted commercial speech, the restriction was narrowly tailored and thus fell within the bounds of the Constitution. Since that decision, the Federal Trade Commission has amended the do-not-call registry to abolish the provision that required individuals to re-register every five years, and in 2008, Congress passed the amendment. This Note argues that the five-year reregistration requirement is a substantial factor in the registry's narrow tailoring. By removing the requirement, questions as to the restriction's constitutionality reemerge.

Gatekeeping Vs. Balancing In The Constitutional Law Of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty On The High Court, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Edward B. Foley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the methodological upheaval created by the quartet of constitutional election law cases decided during October Term 2007. Prior to this Term, the ascendant analytic approach called for a threshold characterization of the burden on the plaintiff's rights, which characterization determined whether the court would apply strict scrutiny or lax, rational-basis-like review. The characterization was generally formal in nature. But in light of the Supreme Court's latest decisions, it is now open to a lower court adjudicating a First Amendment or Equal Protection challenge to an election law-absent a Supreme Court precedent squarely on point- (1) to engage …

The Freedom Of 3d Thought: The First Amendment In Virtual Reality, Marc Jonathan Blitz

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Four-Factor Disaster: Courts Should Abandon The Circuit Test For Distinguishing Government Speech From Private Speech, Lilia Lim

Washington Law Review

A recent addition to First Amendment jurisprudence, the government-speech doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to insulate government speech from certain First Amendment challenges. Broadly, the doctrine rests on the notion that when the government speaks for itself, it may say what it wishes. Recently, government entities facing claims of viewpoint discrimination against speech have asserted a government-speech defense, claiming that their viewpoint-based actions were justifiable because they were not regulating private speech but speaking for themselves. Several federal courts deciding these cases have applied a circuit-developed, four-factor test to determine whether the speech at issue was private speech …

The Case For A Constitutional Easement Approach To Permanent Monuments In Traditional Public Forums, Paul E. Mcgreal

NULR Online

No abstract provided.

Election Apparel And The Fashion Police, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The University Campus As “Useless Appendage”, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Sanctity Of Polling Places, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Freedom To Err: The Idea Of Natural Selection In Politics, Schools, And Courts, Paul D. Carrington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Changing State Laws To Prohibit The Display Of Hangman's Nooses: Tightening The Knot Around The First Amendment?, Allison Barger

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.