First Amendment Commons^™

The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans § 230 Immunity, Danielle Keats Citron, Benjamin Wittes

Fordham Law Review

Section 230 is overdue for a rethinking. If courts do not construe the scope of federal immunity to avoid injustice, we argue, Congress should amend the law. This is not to discount the important role that the immunity provision has played over the past twenty years. Far from it. Section 230 immunity has enabled innovation and expression beyond the imagination of the operators of early bulletin boards and computer service providers the provision was designed to protect. But its overbroad interpretation has left victims of online abuse with no leverage against site operators whose business models facilitate abuse. This state …

Entertaining Satan: Why We Tolerate Terrorist Incitement, Andrew Koppelman

Fordham Law Review

Words are dangerous. That is why governments sometimes want to suppress speech. The law of free speech reflects a settled decision that, at the time that law was adopted, the dangers were worth tolerating. But people keep dreaming up nasty new things to do with speech. Recently, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist organizations have employed a small army of Iagos on the internet to recruit new instruments of destruction. Some of what they have posted is protected speech under present First Amendment law. In response, scholars have suggested that there should be some new …

Terrorists Are Always Muslim But Never White: At The Intersection Of Critical Race Theory And Propaganda, Caroline Mala Corbin

Fordham Law Review

When you hear the word “terrorist,” who do you picture? Chances are, it is not a white person. In the United States, two common though false narratives about terrorists who attack America abound. We see them on television, in the movies, on the news, and, currently, in the Trump administration. The first is that “terrorists are always (brown) Muslims.” The second is that “white people are never terrorists.” Different strands of critical race theory can help us understand these two narratives. One strand examines the role of unconscious cognitive biases in the production of stereotypes, such as the stereotype of …

The Internet As Marketplace Of Madness— And A Terrorist’S Best Friend, Thane Rosenbaum

Fordham Law Review

The panel I was assigned to, for this distinguished gathering of scholars at Fordham Law School, where I had previously been a professor for twentythree years, was given the name, “Caution Against Overreaching.” Overreaching and the caution it occasions, in this case, refer to the First Amendment, a uniquely American absolutist, legalistic obsession. For many who fixate on such matters, the government must never be allowed to trample upon the unfettered free speech rights guaranteed under America’s first, and most favorite, Amendment.

Terror On Your Timeline: Criminalizing Terrorist Incitement On Social Media Through Doctrinal Shift, Zachary Leibowitz

Fordham Law Review

The United States faces a barrage of threats from terrorist organizations on a daily basis. The government takes some steps to prevent these threats from coming to fruition, but not much is being done proactively. Any person can log into a social media account to preach hate and incite violence against the United States and its citizenry, and sometimes these words result in action. When speakers are not held accountable, they can continue to incite the masses to violent action across the United States. This Note proposes a new incitement doctrine to prevent these speakers from being able to spread …

Free Speech And The Confluence Of National Security And Internet Exceptionalism, Alan K. Chen

Fordham Law Review

In this Article, I argue that, notwithstanding these contemporary developments, the Court got it mostly right in Brandenburg. Or, I want to at least suggest that it is premature to reconstruct the Brandenburg test to address perceived changes in our global environment. For the most part, Brandenburg has succeeded in mediating the balance between protecting political or ideological advocacy and enabling the government to regulate actual incitement, even in the contemporary era. Moreover, I argue that society should be especially wary of calls to narrow Brandenburg’s speech-protective standard because such changes might be significantly influenced by the confluence of two …

The Role Of Internet Intermediaries In Tackling Terrorism Online, Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Fordham Law Review

Gatekeeping is defined as the work of third parties “who are able to disrupt misconduct by withholding their cooperation from wrongdoers.”1 Internet intermediaries need to be far more proactive as gatekeepers than they are now. Socially responsible measures can prevent the translation of violent thoughts into violent actions. Designated monitoring mechanisms can potentially prevent such unfortunate events. This Article suggests an approach that harnesses the strengths and capabilities of the public and private sectors in offering practical solutions to pressing problems. It proposes that internet intermediaries should fight stringently against terror and further argues that a responsible gatekeeping approach is …

Social Media Accountability For Terrorist Propaganda, Alexander Tsesis

Fordham Law Review

Terrorist organizations have found social media websites to be invaluable for disseminating ideology, recruiting terrorists, and planning operations. National and international leaders have repeatedly pointed out the dangers terrorists pose to ordinary people and state institutions. In the United States, the federal Communications Decency Act’s § 230 provides social networking websites with immunity against civil law suits. Litigants have therefore been unsuccessful in obtaining redress against internet companies who host or disseminate third-party terrorist content. This Article demonstrates that § 230 does not bar private parties from recovery if they can prove that a social media company had received complaints …

Free Speech And National Security Bootstraps, Heidi Kitrosser

Fordham Law Review

It is troubling that courts treat administrative designations—specifically, both FTO determinations and information classification—as bootstraps by which to yank speech restrictions from the clutches of probing judicial scrutiny. This Article builds on existing scholarly critiques to identify and examine the common thread of national security bootstrapping that runs through both sets of cases. The hope is that in so doing, some greater light may be shed both on the cases themselves and, more broadly, on the costs and benefits of judicial deference to executive national security claims where civil rights and civil liberties are at stake.

Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton

Fordham Law Review

This Article examines how the government’s speech in the War on Terror can threaten free speech, equal protection, and due process values. It focuses primarily on the constitutional harms threatened by the government’s speech itself (what some call a form of “soft law”), rather than on situations in which the government’s speech may be evidence of a constitutionally impermissible motive for its “hard law” actions.

Terrorizing Advocacy And The First Amendment: Free Expression And The Fallacy Of Mutual Exclusivity, Martin H. Redish, Matthew Fisher

Fordham Law Review

Traditional free speech doctrine is inadequate to account for modern terrorist speech. Unprotected threats and substantially protected lawful advocacy are not mutually exclusive. This Article proposes recognizing a new hybrid category of speech called “terrorizing advocacy.” This is a type of traditionally protected public advocacy of unlawful conduct that simultaneously exhibits the unprotected pathologies of a true threat. This Article explains why this new category confounds existing First Amendment doctrine and details a proposed model for how the doctrine should be reshaped.

A Jewish And (Declining) Democratic State? Constitutional Retrogression In Israel, Nadiv Mordechay, Yaniv Roznai

Maryland Law Review

This Article describes and analyzes an increasing trend of contemporary democratic hybridization and constitutional retrogression in Israel. We seek to reconstruct the Israeli case as a state of affairs where a strong leadership, coupled with rising political elites, are leading to a wide-ranging political risk to the constitutional liberal-democracy, to an erosion of its democratic institutions, and to an incremental democratic backslide.

This Article contributes to the evolving recent literature in comparative constitutional law on the constitutional implications of democratic retrogression by characterizing the Israeli case as one that might be categorized as constitutional retrogression. This, as we argue, carries …

Protection Against The Discovery Or Disclosure Of Church Documents And Records, Jeffrey Hunter Moon

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Brief Of Amici Curiae Public Accommodation Law Scholars In Support Of Respondents, Samuel Bagenstos

Appellate Briefs

Amici are legal scholars with expertise in the historical and contemporary applications of the public accommodation laws. This brief argues that the First Amendment exemption Masterpiece claims would subvert the historic purpose of these laws: to promote equal dignity in the marketplace.

For more than half a century, state public accommodation laws across the country have protected against denials of dignity and equal treatment in the public marketplace. Throughout that period, this Court has consistently rejected arguments that businesses open to the general public have a constitutional right to provide less than the full and equal services required by such …

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Developments In Liability Theories And Defenses, Robert A. Destro

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Legal/Legislative Issues In Euthanasia And Physician-Assisted Suicide, Edward Grant

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

The Right To Self-Directed Death: Reconsidering An Ancient Proscription, G. Steven Neeley

The Catholic Lawyer

No abstract provided.

Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, And The Petition Clause, Karl S. Coplan

Maine Law Review

Although Article I of the Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress, the lawmaking process in this country has evolved to involve all three branches. Congress enacts regulatory programs, but delegates to the executive branch the task of formulating and legislating the details of implementation through regulations. Once the executive branch agencies have acted, Article III courts routinely step in to review the consistency of these regulations with congressional mandates. In many cases, especially in the case of controversial regulations, the lawmaking process is not complete until judicial review. Entities burdened by such regulations-so-called "regulatory objects"-enjoy presumed standing to challenge …

Fighting The New Wars Of Religion: The Need For A Tolerant First Amendment, Leslie C. Griffin

Maine Law Review

Religious wars have broken out around the country about the legality of gay marriage, the consequences of gay ordination for property ownership, the funding of faith-based organizations and the placement of crosses and Ten Commandments (but not Seven Aphorisms) on public land. To resolve such impassioned disputes, Americans traditionally look to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Unfortunately, the Court's modern decisions interpreting those clauses have shed more heat than light on the discussion and have provoked ongoing controversy instead of …