First Amendment Commons^™

The Problem Isn't Just Backpage: Revising Section 230 Immunity, Danielle K. Citron, Benjamin Wittes

Faculty Scholarship

Backpage is a classifieds hub that hosts “80 percent of the online advertising for illegal commercial sex in the United States.” This is not by happenstance but rather by design. Evidence suggests that the advertising hub selectively removed postings discouraging sex trafficking. The site also tailored its rules to protect the practice from detection, including allowing anonymized email and photographs stripped of metadata. Under the prevailing interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 230 (“Section 230”) of the CDA, however, Backpage would be immune from liability connected to sex trafficking even though it proactively helped sex traffickers from getting caught. No matter …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Michael J. Yelnosky's Blog: Janus V. Afscme And "Weaponizing The First Amendment 06-30-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Discovering Trump 06-22-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Curtailing Online Service Provider Immunity From Liability: An Advocacy For The Entension Of Roommates.Com, Corey Patton

Seattle University Law Review

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) was enacted following the controversial decision in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., where an interactive computer service provider was held liable for a libelous message posted by a user on one of its financial message boards. The court determined that the service provider was a “publisher” of the libelous message for the purposes of state law because it had engaged in screening and moderating of other objectionable posts on its message boards but failed to remove the libelous message in question. Because the service provider voluntarily self-policed some of the …

Why Did Liberals Join The Majority In The Masterpiece Case?, Katherine A. Shaw

Online Publications

It was no surprise that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has cast the decisive vote in so many important Supreme Court cases, wrote Monday’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips who, on religious grounds, had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Jared Goldstein's Blog: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling: No Constitutional Right To Discriminate (For Now) 06-05-2018, Jared A. Goldstein

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

Search Query: Can America Accept A Right To Be Forgotten As A Publicity Right?, James J. Lavelle

Brooklyn Law Review

Search engines have profoundly changed the relationship between privacy and free speech by making personal information widely and cheaply available to a global audience. This has raised many concerns both over how online companies handle the information they collect and how regular citizens use online services to invade other people’s privacy. One way Europe has addressed this change is by providing European Union citizens with a right to petition search engines to deindex links from search results—a so-called “right to be forgotten.” If the information contained in a search result is “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant,” the search engine …

Tipped Scales: A Look At The Ever-Growing Imbalance Of Power Protecting Religiously Motivated Conduct, Why That's Bad, And How To Stop It, Jeff Nelson

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the current state of the law that seemingly allows individuals to harm and discriminate against others on the basis of their protected religious beliefs. This Note also explores how such a result has been made possible and how it may be stymied by judicial and legislative action. Section II discusses a short history of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause leading up to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and also includes an examination of both the real and possible harmful effects of RFRAs, current reactions to the application of these laws domestically, and interesting parallels internationally. Section III …

Academic Freedom In The Guarded Institution, Douglas B. Mckechnie, Eric Merriam

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Litigating Free Speech Issues In The Trenches, Robert M. O'Neil

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Analysis Of The Academic Freedom Of Public University Professors, Vikram Amar

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Academic Freedom And Political Correctness In Uncivil Times, Rodney A. Smolla

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Current Threats To Free Speech On Campus, Robert Shibley

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Contents, First Amendment Law Review

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, John A. Conway, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 18S-CQ-00134
Akeem Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 17-3051, The Honorable Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

From the Summary of Argument

Untethered to a sufficient public policy interest, right of publicity claims have exploded nationwide. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against inspirational plaques featuring civil rights icons, Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp., 812 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2016),artwork commemorating significant events, Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, 545 Fed. App’x. 405 , 407 (6th Cir. 2013); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003), Wikipedia edits that truthfully connected an astronaut with …

The Visibility Value Of The First Amendment, Brian C. Murchison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …

A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …

Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Political Ideology As A Limited Protected Class Under Federal Title Vii Antidiscrimination Law, Anne Carey

Journal of Law and Policy

As the political climate in the United States becomes increasingly divided, more and more employees are fired for their off-duty political speech. Political speech is highly protected from government interference under the First Amendment, but it is not well protected from discrimination in employment matters. This is despite the fact that employers can be just as powerful and influential as the government. Although employee political speech is not currently protected at the federal level, there are a myriad of state statutes that protect employee speech from employer retaliation. Some of these state statutes protect speech on a broader level, others …