First Amendment Commons^™

A Standard For Salvation: Evaluating “Hybrid-Rights” Free-Exercise Claims, William J. Haun

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Religious Argument, Free Speech Theory, And Democratic Dynamism, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Political theorists have long debated whether liberal democratic norms of public political debate should constrain political arguments grounded in religious beliefs or similar conscientious commitments. In this article, Professor Magarian contends that normative insights from free speech theory have salience for this controversy and should ultimately lead us to reject any normative constraint on religious argument. On the restrictive side of the debate stand prominent liberal theorists, led by John Rawls, who maintain that arguments grounded in religion and other comprehensive commitments threaten liberal democracy by offering illegitimate grounds for government action and destabilizing democratic politics. On the permissive side …

Justice Stevens, Religion, And Civil Society, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Did Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired from the Supreme Court last year, harbor a bias against religion? During his thirty-five years on the Court, Justice Stevens showed little favor for religious claimants. In Establishment Clause cases he advocated a strong doctrine of separation between church and state. In the most contentious Free Exercise Clause cases, he opposed exempting religious believers from laws that interfered with religious exercise. This combination of positions, unique among the Justices of the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts, has led commentators to charge Justice Stevens with hostility toward religion. This article debunks that conventional analysis …

The Limits Of Tort Privacy, Neil M. Richards

Scholarship@WashULaw

The conception of tort privacy developed by Warren, Brandeis and Prosser sits at the heart of American understandings of privacy law. Rooted in protection of private information against unwanted collection, use, and disclosure, tort privacy protects against emotional injury, and was directed by design against disclosures of true, embarrassing facts by the media. In this essay, I argue that as conceived by Warren and Brandeis and interpreted by Prosser, tort privacy is a poor vehicle for grappling with problems of privacy and reputation in the digital age. Tort privacy, especially the disclosure tort, has from its inception been in conflict …

Shouting "Fire!" In A Theater And Vilifying Corn Dealers, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

Five years ago, Fred Schauer published an article with the intriguing title: "Do Cases Make Bad Law?" Playing off Holmes' observation that "[g]reat cases like hard cases make bad law," Schauer explored the possibility, as he put it, that "it is not just great cases and hard cases that make bad law, but simply the deciding of cases that makes bad law.” His concern, confirmed and deepened by his characteristically balanced inquiry, was that general principles forged in the resolution of specific legal disputes can suffer by virtue of that provenance. Because such principles by definition are meant to carry …

Seana Shiffrin's Thinker-Based Freedom Of Speech: A Response, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

As an instinctive consequentialist so far as First Amendment theory is concerned, I have to admit that I have never been so tempted by a non-consequentialist account as I am by what Professor Shiffrin has produced. My principal interest is the history of ideas regarding the freedom of speech. I have long been struck by how so many of the canonical writers on the subject have built their arguments from the starting point of the central importance of the freedom of thought. This is true of Milton and Mill in a basic, explicit, straightforward way (if Milton can ever be …

Democratic Participation And The Freedom Of Speech: A Response To Post And Weinstein Responses, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

I think it is useful to search for a theory that has as one of its justifications its superior fit with either the case law or the fundamental commitments and shared understandings of the political community, preferably with both. So even if someone were to convince me that she has in hand a normatively superior theory of free speech, whether grounded in the commitment to democracy or otherwise, I would still be interested in what Professors Post and Weinstein are trying to do.

Symposium On Commercial Speech And Public Health, Jonathan H. Adler

Faculty Publications

Does the constitutional protection of commercial speech impair the government's ability to protect and promote public health? Or does the commercial speech doctrine itself enhance consumer education and harness market competition to advance public health? Do First Amendment limitations on regulation of commercial messages unduly retard governmental efforts to safeguard consumers? Or do they properly constrain illiberal paternalism? If the Court has been over-protective of health-related commercial speech, is there a principled place to redraw the line? And how should those governmental agencies entrusted with the power to protect public health and welfare respond to these constitutional constraints?

The editors …

The Anti-Bootlegging Provisions: Congressional Power And Constitutional Limitations, Craig W. Dallon

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

Courts and scholars have considered the constitutional validity of 17 U.S.C. § 1101 (civil), and 18 U.S.C. § 2319A (criminal), known together as "the anti-bootlegging provisions." These provisions prohibit unauthorized recording, copying, and distribution of live musical performances. The provisions have been challenged in three cases, resulting in five published opinions. Two district court opinions held the provisions unconstitutional, but subsequent opinions vacated those decisions. Notwithstanding a sharp division among copyright scholars, the courts have upheld these provisions. The discussion surrounding them is part of a continuing struggle to ascertain limits on congressional power to regulate copying and distribution of …

Putting The Shock Value In First Amendment Jurisprudence: When Freedom For The Citizen-Journalist Watchdog Trumps The Right Of Informational Privacy On The Internet, Clay Calvert, Mirelis Torres

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

This Article, which takes the July 2010 ruling by the Fourth Circuit in Ostergren v. Cuccinelli as a point of departure, explores the growing tension between the First Amendment right of Free Speech and the nascent right to online informational privacy. The Article addresses the "shock value" in First Amendment jurisprudence, stretching from Cohen v. California and Texas v. Johnson through the recent ruling in Ostergren. The Article also examines the traditional watchdog function of the press increasingly performed on the Internet by so-called citizen-journalists akin to Betty Ostergren. The Article concludes that while the Fourth Circuit's decision in Ostergren …

The Architecture Of First Amendment Free Speech, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United …

Turning Anti-Discrimination Laws On Their Head: Using Rhetoric To Attempt To Turn The Medicine Into The Illness, Todd Tolin

Student Works

No abstract provided.

Government Speech And Online Forums: First Amendment Limitations On Moderating Public Discourse On Government Websites, David S. Ardia

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Justice Souter On Government Speech, Sheldon Nahmod

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Free Speech Rights Of “Off-Duty” Government Employees, Mary-Rose Papandrea

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government Speech And The Publicly Employed Attorney, Margaret Tarkington

BYU Law Review

In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court incorporated the "government speech" doctrine into its case law regarding the speech rights of public employees. This incorporation had the effect of nullifying a public employee's free speech rights whenever the employee is speaking pursuant to her official duties. While the Garcetti rule may be problematic in a number situations, it is particularly problematic as applied to publicly employed attorney speech, most notably the speech of prosecutors and public defenders. Attorney speech (including the speech of publicly employed attorneys) is not government speech and should not be treated as government speech. A …

Summum, The Vocality Of Public Places, And The Public Forum, Timothy Zick

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Emerging Oversimplifications Of The Government Speech Doctrine: From Substantive Content To A “Jurisprudence Of Labels”, Barry P. Mcdonald

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Pick Your Poison: Private Speech, Government Speech, And The Special Problem Of Religious Displays, Ronnell Andersen Jones

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.