First Amendment Commons^™

Robert Tsai, Eloquence And Reason: Creating A First Amendment Culture Book Review, Zanita E. Fenton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Poison Pens, Intimidating Icons, And Worrisome Websites: Off-Campus Student Speech That Challenges Both Campus Safety And First Amendment Jurisprudence, Kathy Luttrell Garcia

St. Thomas Law Review

As the line between off-campus and on-campus student speech is increasingly blurred by the internet, educators and courts alike are struggling to determine the limits of school authority to restrict student speech that originates off-campus but is directed toward an on-campus audience. Although students retain their First-Amendment-protected rights of free speech and expression on school campuses during school hours, these rights are subject to exceptions. These exceptions are constitutionally permissible, even where the speech could not be restricted off campus, because "student First Amendment rights are 'applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." Because of these …

Government Speech 2.0, Helen Norton, Danielle K. Citron

Faculty Scholarship

New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …

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

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Snyder V. Phelps: Searching For A Legal Standard, Leslie C. Griffin

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Protection For Non-Media Defendants: Should There Be A Distinction Between You And Larry King?, Rebecca Phillips

Campbell Law Review

This Comment considers the current law, contemplates the rapid growth of technology and proposes an answer to the following two questions: Should there be a distinction between media and nonmedia defendants? If so, who should be offered more protection: You or Larry King? To answer these questions, Part I summarizes traditional and current defamation law and the First Amendment protections that have been meted out by the courts. Part II discusses the court decisions that have noted whether a distinction between media and nonmedia defendants is meritorious and critiques those conclusions in light of the development of defamation law. Part …

A Popular Approach To Popular Constitutionalism: The First Amendment, Civic Education, And Constitutional Change, Thomas G. Donnelly

Law Faculty Publications

Popular constitutionalists fear that our constitutional culture is becoming less popular. At the same time, these scholars often ignore key popular sources of constitutional meaning. Their accounts focus,  instead, on the elite conflicts that give rise to constitutional change, particularly the ongoing debates between elected officials, movement leaders, and the Supreme Court. Although these studies are essential to understanding the pathways for promoting non-Article V constitutional change, they are "popular" only in the sense that they focus on non-judicial actors and politically salient controversies. The constitutional life of the average citizen is generally ignored. If legal scholars are serious about …

The Texas Mis-Step: Why The Largest Child Removal In Modern U.S. History Failed, Jessica Dixon Weaver

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

This Article sets forth the historical and legal reasons as to how the State of Texas botched the removal of 439 children from the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints parents residing in Eldorado, Texas. The Department of Family and Protective Services in Texas overreached its authority by treating this case like a class-action removal based on an impermissible legal argument, rather than focusing on the facts and circumstances that could have been substantiated for a select group of children at risk. This impermissible legal argument regarding the “pervasive belief system” of a polygamist sect that allowed minor …

Regulating Cyberharassment: Some Thoughts On Sexual Harassment 2.0, Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.

Undoing Neutrality?: From Church-State Separation To Judeo-Christian Tolerance, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

When Is Religious Speech Outrageous?: Snyder V. Phelps And The Limits Of Religious Advocacy, Jeffrey Shulman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The Constitution affords great protection to religiously motivated speech. Religious liberty would mean little if it did not mean the right to profess and practice as well as to believe. But are there limits beyond which religious speech loses its constitutional shield? Would it violate the First Amendment to subject a religious entity to tort liability if its religious profession causes emotional distress? When is religious speech outrageous?

These are vexing questions, to say the least; but the United States Supreme Court will take them up next term—and it will do so in a factual context that has generated as …

Cyberspace Is Outside The Schoolhouse Gate: Offensive, Online Student Speech Receives First Amendment Protection, Joseph A. Tomain

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Normative and doctrinal analysis shows that schools do not possess jurisdiction over offensive online student speech, at least when it does not cause a substantial disruption of the school environment. This article is a timely analysis on the limits of school jurisdiction over offensive online student speech.

On February 4, 2010, two different Third Circuit panels issued opinions reaching opposite conclusions on whether schools may punish students based on online speech created by students when they are off-campus. The Third Circuit vacated both decisions and is considering these cases in a consolidated en banc appeal. Another case addressing the same …

Citizens United And The Corporate Form, Reuven S. Avi-Yonah

Articles

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down a Federal statute banning direct corporate expenditures on political campaigns. The decision has been widely criticized and praised as a matter of First Amendment law. But it is also interesting as another step in the evolution of our legal views of the corporation. This Article argues that by viewing Citizens Unitedthrough the prism of theories about the corporate form, it is possible to see that the majority and the dissent departed from previous Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment rights of corporations. It is also possible to then predict …

Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides, Lucian A. Bebchuk, Robert J. Jackson Jr.

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court spoke clearly this Term on the issue of corporate political speech, concluding in Citizens United v. FEC' that the First Amendment protects corporations' freedom to spend corporate funds on indirect support of political candidates. 2 Constitutional law scholars will long debate the wisdom of that holding, as do the authors of the two other Comments in this issue.3 In contrast, this Comment accepts as given that corporations may not be limited from spending money on politics should they decide to speak. We focus instead on an important question left unanswered by Citizens United: who should have the …

Honest To Blog: Balancing The Interests Of Public Figures And Anonymous Bloggers In Defamation Lawsuits, Yang-Ming Tham

Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal (1994 - )

No abstract provided.

The Myth Of The Level Playing Field: Knowledge, Affect, And Repetition In Public Debate, Jeremy N. Sheff

Faculty Publications

The industrialization of the channels and scale of communication has led some well-meaning reformers to try to regulate the ability of powerful private actors to leverage economic inequality into political inequality, particularly in the area of campaign finance. Such reform efforts are ostensibly intended to further the deliberative democratic ideal of rational, informed public decision making by preventing well-funded private interests from improperly influencing democratic debate and, by extension, political outcomes. This Article examines empirical findings in political science, psychology, and marketing and argues that, in the context of contemporary American society, the normative principles of deliberative democracy and formal …

Territoriality And The First Amendment: Free Speech At - And Beyond - Our Borders, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

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

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Minimalism And Deliberative Democracy: A Closer Look At The Virtues Of "Shallowness", Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

Cass Sunstein has long argued that judicial minimalism promotes democracy. According to Sunstein’s view, a court can encourage the political branches of government to address an issue by using doctrines such as vagueness, nondelegation, and desuetude. Although much has been written about minimalism, very little has been said about the democracy-promotion thesis in particular. Yet it is one of the central claims of contemporary minimalism. This article attempts to remedy the deficiency. It argues that minimalism does not promote democracy because minimalist decisions lack the depth necessary to trigger democratic deliberation. The argument occurs in three steps. First, the article …

Hate Speech And The Language Of Racism In Latin America: A Lens For Reconsidering Global Hate Speech Restrictions And Legislation Models, Tanya K. Hernandez

Faculty Scholarship

In Latin America, like many countries in Europe, hate speech is prohibited. Yet Latin America is rarely included in the transnational discussion regarding the regulation of hate speech. Instead, the discourse focuses on a comparison of the advisability of Europe's hate speech regulations and free speech acceptance of hate speech in the United States. As a result, the ability to fundamentally examine the connections between hate speech and inequality, in addition to the most effective legal mechanisms for addressing it, is undermined. It is especially critical to broaden the hate speech debate now that we are seeing an apparent rise …