The Dogs That Did Not Bark: The Silence Of The Legal Academy During World War Ii,
2011
Duke Law School
The Dogs That Did Not Bark: The Silence Of The Legal Academy During World War Ii, Sarah H. Ludington
Faculty Scholarship
During World War II, the legal academy was virtually uncritical of the government’s conduct of the war, despite some obvious domestic abuses of civil rights, such as the internment of Japanese-Americans. This silence has largely been ignored in the literature about the history of legal education. This Article argues that there are many strands of causation for this silence. On an obvious level, World War II was a popular war fought against a fascist threat, and left-leaning academics generally supported the war. On a less obvious level, law school enrollment plummeted during the war, and the numbers of full-time law …
Transforming Property Into Speech,
2011
Duke Law School
Transforming Property Into Speech, Joseph Blocher
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights,
2011
Duke Law School
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 …
Bob Dylan On Lenny Bruce: More Of An Outlaw Than You Ever Were,
2011
Touro Law Center
Bob Dylan On Lenny Bruce: More Of An Outlaw Than You Ever Were, Louise Harmon
Scholarly Works
No abstract provided.
The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants,
2011
University of Colorado Law School
The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants, Scott A. Moss
Publications
Each of the Supreme Court's high school student speech cases reflected the social angst of its era. In 1965's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, three Iowa teens broke school rules to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. In 1983, amidst parental and political upset about youth exposure to sexuality in the media, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allowed the censorship of an innuendo-filled student government speech and a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy and parental divorce. In 2007, Morse v. Frederick paralleled the rise of reality television …
Imaginary Threats To Government's Expressive Interests,
2011
University of Colorado Law School
Imaginary Threats To Government's Expressive Interests, Helen Norton
Publications
The Supreme Court’s emerging government speech doctrine permits the government to refuse to allow other parties to join, and thus change or distort, its own message. In this way, the government speech doctrine appropriately protects government’s legitimate – and valuable – expressive interests by providing a defense to free speech clause claims by private speakers who seek to compel the government to deliver their own views. Too often, however, governmental bodies are asserting their own expressive interests to claim – and some courts are permitting them to exercise – the power to punish private parties’ speech that does not threaten …
Campaign Speech Law With A Twist: When The Government Is The Speaker, Not The Regulator,
2011
University of Colorado Law School
Campaign Speech Law With A Twist: When The Government Is The Speaker, Not The Regulator, Helen Norton
Publications
Although government entities frequently engage in issue-related campaign speech on a variety of contested ballot and legislative measures, this fact has been entirely overlooked in contemporary First Amendment debates over campaign speech law specifically and government speech more generally. The Supreme Court's "campaign speech" and "government speech" dockets have focused to date on claims by private parties that the government has restricted or silenced their speech in violation of the First Amendment. In contrast, disputes over what this Article calls "governmental campaign speech" involve Free Speech Clause and other challenges by private parties who seek instead to silence the government's …
Reviving Slander,
2011
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
Reviving Slander, Cristina Carmody Tilley
Faculty Publications
Roman law treated differently speech restricted to small, closed communities and speech within or among large, permeable communities. Intracommunity speech was subject to unlimited tort consequences, while intercommunity speech was subject to central government regulation. As English speech law evolved, slander rules governing spoken speech became a convenient proxy for intracommunity speech regulation, while libel rules governing written speech became a convenient proxy for intercommunity speech. In American law, the conceptual collapse of slander and libel meant that constitutional limits designed to lift central government regulation of intercommunity speech perhaps inadvertently vitiated tort consequences for intracommunity speech. The Supreme Court's …
The Constitutional Status Of Speech About Oneself,
2011
Cleveland State University
The Constitutional Status Of Speech About Oneself, R. George Wright
Cleveland State Law Review
We have accepted above the well-established idea that speech about oneself that is also intended to convey some sort of political idea or to address some matter of public concern can typically be distinguished from speech about oneself with no such further intent. On this basis, we have argued, contrary to recent contentions, that the latter sort of speech-speech that is "merely" about the self, or about one's merely personal or private concerns-should not generally qualify for any sort of elevated free speech protection. Fundamentally, this is because such speech does not systematically promote any of the consensually recognized and …
The Myth Of Church-State Separation,
2011
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
The Myth Of Church-State Separation, David E. Steinberg
Cleveland State Law Review
This article asserts that the church-state separation interpretation of Establishment Clause history is simply wrong. The framers were focused on the first five words of the amendment, which read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .” The original Establishment Clause was a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere in state regulation of religion-whatever form that state regulation took. Rather than enacting the Establishment Clause to mandate a separation of church and state, the framers adopted the clause to protect divergent state practices-including state establishment of …
Preface,
2011
UC Hastings College of the Law
Turning Anti-Discrimination Laws On Their Head: Using Rhetoric To Attempt To Turn The Medicine Into The Illness,
2010
Seton Hall Law
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.
Pick Your Poison: Private Speech, Government Speech, And The Special Problem Of Religious Displays,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
Pick Your Poison: Private Speech, Government Speech, And The Special Problem Of Religious Displays, Ronnell Andersen Jones
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Government Speech And The Publicly Employed Attorney,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
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 …
Expensive Speech: Citizens United V. Fec And The Free Speech Rights Of Tax-Exempt Religious Organizations,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
Expensive Speech: Citizens United V. Fec And The Free Speech Rights Of Tax-Exempt Religious Organizations, Brandon S. Boulter
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Emerging Oversimplifications Of The Government Speech Doctrine: From Substantive Content To A “Jurisprudence Of Labels”,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
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.
Summum, The Vocality Of Public Places, And The Public Forum,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
Summum, The Vocality Of Public Places, And The Public Forum, Timothy Zick
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
Government Speech And Online Forums: First Amendment Limitations On Moderating Public Discourse On Government Websites,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
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,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
Justice Souter On Government Speech, Sheldon Nahmod
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Free Speech Rights Of “Off-Duty” Government Employees,
2010
Brigham Young University Law School
The Free Speech Rights Of “Off-Duty” Government Employees, Mary-Rose Papandrea
BYU Law Review
No abstract provided.
