First Amendment Commons^™

Weeding Out Wolves: Protecting Speakers And Punishing Pirates In Unmasking Analyses, Nathaniel Plemons

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Note examines the prevalence of anonymous internet speakers, the practical and legal issues that courts confront when balancing the rights of anonymous internet speakers with those of plaintiffs seeking to unmask them, and the serious dangers courts expose speakers to if wrongfully unmasked. Part I argues that internet speech merits the same First Amendment protections as traditional speech, notes the unique benefits of anonymous internet speech, examines the practical difficulties faced by courts and plaintiffs in unmasking anonymous speakers, and details the immense dangers these speakers face if wrongfully exposed. Part II analyzes the most common approaches courts use …

Listeners' Choices, James Grimmelmann

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Speech is a matching problem. Speakers choose listeners, and listeners choose speakers. When their choices conflict, law often decides who speaks to whom. The pattern is clear: First Amendment doctrine consistently honors listeners' choices for speech. When willing and unwilling listeners' choices conflict, willing listeners win. And when competing speakers' choices conflict, listeners' choices break the tie. This Essay provides a theoretical framework for analyzing speech problems in terms of speakers' and listeners' choices, an argument for the centrality of listener choice to any coherent theory of free speech, and supporting examples from First Amendment caselaw.

The Lessons Of 1919, Lackland H. Bloom

SMU Law Review

One hundred years ago, the Supreme Court embarked on its first serious consideration of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In 1919, the Court upheld four federal criminal convictions over First Amendment defenses. Three of the majority opinions were written by Justice Holmes. In the fourth, he offered a classic dissent. Two of the cases, Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States, are of middling significance. The other two, Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States, are iconic. From these cases have sprung an expansive and complex jurisprudence of free speech. The …

A Dangerous Concoction: Pharmaceutical Marketing, Cognitive Biases, And First Amendment Overprotection, Cynthia M. Ho

Faculty Publications & Other Works

This Article argues that pharmaceutical marketing to doctors should be more critically evaluated and entitled to less First Amendment protection, contrary to a trend dating back to the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Sorrell. In particular, the Article argues that more information to doctors in the form of pharmaceutical marketing does not necessarily result in better patient outcomes. The Article adds a significant critique based on the existence and impact of cognitive bias literature that has thus far not been recognized in this area. If courts fully embrace this understanding, they should recognize that the government, through the Food and …

Doctrinal Dynamism, Borrowing, And The Relationship Between Rules And Rights, Luke Smith Morgan, Joseph Blocher

Scholarly Works

The study of "Rights Dynamism," exemplified in Timothy Zick's new book on the First Amendment's relationship with the rest of the Bill of Rights, can enrich our understanding of constitutional rights. It also opens a door to another potentially fruitful arena: what we call "Doctrinal Dynamism." Constitutional rights often interact and generate new meanings and applications by way of importing and exporting one another's doctrinal rules, even when the rights themselves do not intersect directly in the context of a single case. Focusing on these doctrinal exchanges can illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of various rules, the specific interests underlying …

Data Subjects' Privacy Rights: Regulation Of Personal Data Retention And Erasure, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The European Union's right to erasure came into effect May 25, 2018, as Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR"). Unlike the U.S. "marketplace of ideas" model of free speech, the GDPR gives greater weight to data subjects' privacy interests than to audiences' curiosity about others' intimate lives. The U.S. and EU models advance human thirst for knowledge through open and uninhibited debates, whereas the internet marketplace tends to favor social media companies' commercial interests: put more specifically, free speech is not entirely harmonious with the interests of social media intermediaries whose algorithms tend to favor companies' bottom …

Marketplace Of Ideas, Privacy, And The Digital Audience, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The availability of almost limitless sets of digital information has opened a vast marketplace of ideas. Information service providers like Facebook and Twitter provide users with an array of personal information about products, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. While this data enriches the lives of those who share content on the internet, it comes at the expense of privacy. Social media companies disseminate news, advertisements, and political messages, while also capitalizing on consumers' private shopping, surfing, and traveling habits. Companies like Cambridge Analytica, Amazon, and Apple rely on algorithmic programs to mash up and scrape enormous amounts of online and otherwise …

Deliberate Democracy, Truth, And Holmesian Social Darwinism, Alexander Tsesis

Faculty Publications & Other Works

JUSTICE Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s “marketplace of ideas” analogy continues to deeply influence First Amendment doctrine. It provides a rational substratum upon which the political or self-realization characterizations of free speech are built. However, typically overlooked is the Social Darwinistic root of the Justice's thought. He championed the spread of ideas and the political sway of majority opinions. That analytical insight is key to many of the Supreme Court's free speech precedents. On the one hand, the concept is invaluable for defending free discussions about philosophy, political science, the arts, humanities, pedagogy, and social sciences. In these areas, the …

Civil Disobedience: A Constitutional Alternative To Injustice, Samuel H.J. Schultz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Reasonable Limits Of Narrowing Construction—State V. Hensel, 901 N.W.2d 166 (Minn. 2017), Day Thornton

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Stop In The Name Of Love: Putting An End To The Felony Prosecution Of Adolescent Sexting, Angela Bailey, Laura Heinrich

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Mike K. Steenson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Private Interests, Public Law, And Reconfigured Inequality In Modern Payment Card Networks, Stephen Wilks

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This Article examines two phenomena contributing to the racial stratification of consumers in credit card markets. The first phenomenon pertains to the longstanding conflict between card issuers and merchants over payment processing cost allocation. If successful, First Amendment challenges to existing statutory surcharge bans will allow merchants to impose an additional fee when consumers use credit cards as a form of payment. The Article relies on the interplay between socioeconomic class and behavioral theory to suggest subsistence borrowers would be more likely to pay surcharge fees than wealthier consumers. This arrangement disfavors the poor to support a hierarchy of borrowers, …

Whose Market Is It Anyway? A Philosophy And Law Critique Of The Supreme Court’S Free-Speech Absolutism, Spencer Bradley

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In the wake of Charlottesville, the rise of the alt-right, and campus controversies, the First Amendment has fallen into public scrutiny. Historically, the First Amendment’s “marketplace of ideas” has been a driving source of American political identity; since Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment protects all speech from government interference unless it causes incitement. The marketplace of ideas allows for the good and the bad ideas to enter American society and ultimately allows the people to decide their own course.

Yet, is the First Amendment truly a tool of social progress? Initially, the First Amendment curtailed war-time dissidents and …

The Case Against Expanding Defamation Law, Yonathan A. Arbel, Murat Mungan

Articles

It is considered axiomatic that defamation law protects reputation. This proposition--commonsensical, pervasive, and influential-- is faulty. Underlying this fallacy is the failure to appreciate audience effects: the interaction between defamation law and members of the audience.

Defamation law seeks to affect the behavior of speakers by making them bear a cost for spreading untruthful information. Invariably, however, the law will also affect members of the audience, as statements made in a highly regulated environment tend to appear more reliable than statements made without accountability. Strict defamation law would tend to increase the perceived reliability of statements, which in some cases …

Compelled Subsidies And Original Meaning, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

The rule against compelled subsidization of speech is at the forefront of modem First Amendment disputes. Challenges to mandatory union dues, laws preventing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the federal "contraceptive mandate" have all featured variants of the anti-subsidization principle, reasoning that the government cannot compel people to support the objectionable activities of others. But the literature currently fails to evaluate modem compelled-subsidy doctrine in terms of the original meaning of the First Amendment. This Essay takes up that task.

Approaching any question of original meaning requires a willingness to encounter a constitutional world that looks very …

Warrantless Searches Of Electronic Devices At U.S. Borders: Securing The Nation Or Violating Digital Liberty?, Ahad Khilji

Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology

The steady increase of U.S. citizens traveling with smart phones and other electronic devices has been met with the rise of searches and seizures by CBP officers at U.S borders. Although only less than 0.1% of all travelers may actually be subjected to a search while entering the United States, when comparing the statistics between a six month period in 2016 with the same period in 2017, electronic device searches have almost doubled from 8,383 to 14,993. Approximately one million travelers to the U.S. are inspected by the CBP every day. Out of this population, nearly 2,500 electronic devices are …

Recording As Heckling, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Publications

A growing body of authority recognizes that citizen recording of police officers and public space is protected by the First Amendment. But the judicial and scholarly momentum behind the emerging “right to record” fails to fully incorporate recording’s cost to another important right that also furthers First Amendment principles: the right to privacy.

This Article helps fill that gap by comprehensively analyzing the First Amendment interests of both the right to record and the right to privacy in public while highlighting the role of technology in altering the First Amendment landscape. Recording information can be critical to future speech and, …

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision And The Clash Between Nondiscrimination And Religious Freedom, Klint W. Alexander, Ph.D, J.D.

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prosecuting Fatal Speech: What Minnesota’S State V. Final Exit Network Means For Assisted-Suicide Laws Across The Country, Anthony W. Joyce

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.