First Amendment Commons^™

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, …

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

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Considerations Of History And Purpose In Constitutional Borrowing, Robert Tsai

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

This essay is part of a symposium issue dedicated to "Constitutional Rights: Intersections, Synergies, and Conflicts" at William and Mary School of Law. I make four points. First, perfect harmony among rights might not always be normatively desirable. In fact, in some instances, such as when First Amendment and Second Amendment rights clash, we might wish to have expressive rights consistently trump gun rights. Second, we can't resolve clashes between rights in the abstract but instead must consult history in a broadly relevant rather than a narrowly "originalist" fashion. When we do so, we learn that armed expression and white …

Speech Across Borders, Jennifer Daskal

Scholarly Articles in Law Reviews & Journals

As both governments and tech companies seek to regulate speech online, these efforts raise critical, and contested, questions about how far those regulations can and should extend. Is it enough to take down or delink material in a geographically segmented way? Or can and should tech companies be ordered to takedown or delink unsavory content across their entire platforms—no matter who is posting the material or where the unwanted content is viewed? How do we deal with conflicting speech norms across borders? And how do we protect against the most censor-prone nation effectively setting global speech rules? These questions were …

When Audiences Object: Free Speech And Campus Speaker Protests Articles & Essays, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

In March 2017, conservative author Charles Murray arrived to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont, invited by a student affiliate of the American Enterprise Institute. Murray planned to discuss his 2013 book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Many Middlebury students and faculty, however, deplored Murray for an earlier book, 1994’s The Bell Curve, where he drew specious connections between race and intelligence. Others simply considered Murray an intellectual lightweight who didn’t warrant a speaking slot at the prestigious college. Murray’s critics objected to the Political Science Department’s co-sponsorship of his ppearance and the college president’s plan to …

Political And Non-Political Speech And Guns, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Constitutional rights depend on justifications. Some combination of theory, his- tory, and practical reasoning needs to establish why and to what extent a given right warrants legal protection. The justifications that courts and theorists articulate for a given right determine the right’s breadth and the specific contours of its protection. Justification has particular importance at the formative stage of a newly recognized constitutional right. At present, courts are building doctrine around the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”1 recognized as an individ- ual right just over a decade ago in District of Columbia v. Heller.2 …

Data-Driven Constitutional Avoidance, Gregory P. Magarian, Lee Epstein, James L. Gibson

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article uses a case study to explain how empirical analysis can promote judicial modesty. In Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to strike down the Lanham Act's bar on federal registration of "disparaging" trademarks. The Tam decision has great constitutional significance. It expands First Amendment coverage into a new field of economic regulation, and it deepens the constitutional prohibition on viewpoint-based speech regulations. This article contends that empirical analysis could have given the Court a narrower basis for the Tam result, one that would have avoided the fraught First Amendment issues the Court decided. …

Pursuing A Universal Threshold For Regulating Incitement To Discrimination, Hostility Or Violence, Rebecca Meyer

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) recognizes that although the right to freedom of expression is essential, it is not absolute. The ICCPR prohibits speech that incites to discrimination, hostility, or violence. The provision prohibiting such speech is important to protect individuals and communities. Yet, not all countries are adequately enforcing its mandate. Such countries are letting inciting speech spread and, in some instances, violence has ensued. Conversely, some countries are taking enforcement too far, using the criminalization of inciting speech as a tool to silence political dissent. In light of the divergent interpretations—each problematic in its …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Recognizing The Free Press In The Crosshairs Across The Globe 12-12-2018, David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

The Future Of Freedom Of Expression Online, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Duke Law & Technology Review

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their …

Sb 339 - Education, Daniel F. Barrett, Alexander Hegner

Georgia State University Law Review

The Act amends the statutes in the Georgia Code applicable to the University System and Board of Regents statutes in the Georgia Code. It adds new sections that place affirmative requirements on the Board of Regents to adopt and publish new policies, which aim to encourage the dissemination of free speech across university campuses. Further, the Act directs that universities must implement disciplinary sanctions for anyone subject to the jurisdiction of the University System who interferes with the free speech of invited speakers and others on campus. Finally, the Board of Regents must publish annual reports regarding any barriers to …

The Purpose (And Limits) Of The University, John Inazu

Utah Law Review

Scholars of the university have produced volumes about growing pressures on the coherence and purpose of institutions of higher education. Meanwhile, legal scholars’ writing about the university has typically focused on its First Amendment dimensions. This Article links insights from these two groups of scholars to explore the purpose of the university and defend it against increasing technological, ideological, and cultural pressures. It argues that a better understanding of the relationship between the First Amendment and the university can help strengthen the coherence of the university’s purpose against these pressures. The connection between the First Amendment and institutional purpose is …

The First Amendment In The Second Gilded Age, Jack M. Balkin

Buffalo Law Review

How do we pay for the digital public sphere? In the Second Gilded Age, the answer is primarily through digital surveillance and through finding ever new ways to make money out of personal data. Digital capitalism in the Second Gilded Age features an implicit bargain: a seemingly unlimited freedom to speak in exchange for the right to surveil and manipulate end users.To protect freedom of speech in the Second Gilded Age we must distinguish the values of free speech from the judicially created doctrines of the First Amendment. That is because the practical freedom to speak online depends on a …

The Esquire Case: A Lost Free Speech Landmark, Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

Lady Justice Cannot Hear Your Prayers, Deborah Ogali

Fordham Law Review

The Islamic finance industry continues to grow quickly as the appetite for everything, from Sharia-compliant home mortgages and car loans to sophisticated financial products, increases. This growth has triggered an interest in sukuk, bond-like financial instruments. And while the international market for sukuk has long been dominated by foreign issuers and English law, the attraction of a niche market compatible with U.S. federal and international securities laws may propel increased participation by U.S. issuers and investors who wish to transact under U.S. federal and state laws. As with all Islamic financial products, sukuk transactions inherently pose a Sharia compliance risk. …

Freedom Of Expression Or Freedom From Hate: A Canadian Perspective, Rosalie Silberman Abella

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Long-Term Preservation Of Public Art: From Cultural Heritage To The Confederacy, Maliha Ikram

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

No abstract provided.

Dialing It Back: Why Courts Should Rethink Students’ Privacy And Speech Rights As Cell Phone Communications Erode The ‘Schoolhouse Gate’, Nicholas J. Mcguire

Duke Law & Technology Review

The ubiquity of cell phones in today’s society has forced courts to change or dismiss established, but inapplicable analytical frameworks. Two such frameworks in the school setting are regulations of student speech and of student searches. This Article traces the constitutional jurisprudence of both First Amendment off-campus speech protection and Fourth Amendment search standards as applied to the school setting. It then analyzes how the Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California complicates both areas. Finally, it proposes a pragmatic solution: by recognizing a categorical First Amendment exception for “substantial threats” against the school community, courts could accommodate students’ constitutional …

How Supreme A Court?, Thomas E. Kadri

Popular Media

Facebook is planning an independent appeals process for content moderation decisions. But how much power will it have?