First Amendment Commons^™

The First Amendment And The Regulation Of Speech Intermediaries, Shaun B. Spencer

Marquette Law Review

Calls to regulate social media platforms abound on both sides of the political spectrum. Some want to prevent platforms from deplatforming users or moderating content, while others want them to deplatform more users and moderate more content. Both types of regulation will draw First Amendment challenges. As Justices Thomas and Alito have observed, applying settled First Amendment doctrine to emerging regulation of social media platforms presents significant analytical challenges.

Private Censorship, Disinformation And The First Amendment: Rethinking Online Platforms Regulation In The Era Of A Global Pandemic, Tzu- Chiang Huang

Michigan Technology Law Review

The proliferation of online disinformation and the rise of private censorship are paradigmatic examples of the challenges to traditional First Amendment jurisprudence in an algorithmic society. The limitations of traditional First Amendment jurisprudence are amplified by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in two ways. On the one hand, in the wake of the pandemic, we have entered an “infodemic” era where the volume of disinformation, as well as the harm it causes have reached unprecedented levels. For example, health disinformation has contributed to vaccine hesitancy. On the other hand, even though the proliferation of online disinformation seems to suggest …

The Rise And Fall Of Group Libel: The Forgotten Campaign For Hate Speech Laws, Samantha Barbas

Journal Articles

It is well-known that there is no “hate speech” law in the United States. This has been criticized, especially given the existence of robust hate speech laws in other nations. The absence of hate speech laws in American law has been attributed to legal, cultural, and historical factors, including speech protective First Amendment jurisprudence and long-standing skepticism of group reputation as an interest worthy of legal protection.

This Article presents another reason for the absence of hate speech laws in America: the failure of a large-scale social movement in the 1940s to pass hate speech laws or “group libel” laws, …

What Does The Alex Jones Case Mean For The First Amendment And Disinformation? Leading Scholars, Lawyers Provide Analysis, George Freeman, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Lynn Oberlander, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Power Of Vulnerability In Promoting A Sense Of Belonging: The Perspective Of A First-Generation American, Karin Mika

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

It is my intention that students teach each other through really getting to know one another and finding commonality in each other’s experiences. Most of us live in a social bubble, partially because we feel vulnerable in worlds where we perceive that we do not belong. By sharing vulnerabilities, we are able to expand our world to not only understand our commonalities, but to get a new view of what we thought was inalterable. By sharing my own experience as an out-sider, I am better able to encourage students to consider more deeply the opinions of others and to learn …

Columbia Law Experts Submit Two Briefs To Supreme Court In Free Speech/Lgb Rights Case, Law, Rights, And Religion Project

Center for Gender & Sexuality Law

Columbia Law School faculty and policy teams submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court on Friday in 303 Creative v. Elenis, a case the Court will decide next term.

Reading Section 230, Shlomo Klapper

Buffalo Law Review

In Gonzalez v. Google, the Supreme Court, for the first time, agreed to hear a case concerning the interpretation of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the most important law governing the internet. As Justice Thomas and others have noted, judges have overlooked Section 230’s text in interpreting the statute, relying instead on purpose. Yet scholars and critics, too, have eschewed the statutory text, relying on intent or consequences to favor alternate interpretations, but depriving the Court and litigants of the richness the statutory text offers.

This Article offers the first comprehensive analysis of Section 230’s text and structure. …

Does Houchins V. Kqed, Inc. Matter?, Matthew L. Schafer

Buffalo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Some Notes On Word Purging, Jethro K. Lieberman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Who Really Benefits From The First Amendment?, Nadine Strossen

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Inherent Powers And The Limits Of Public Health Fake News, Michael P. Goodyear

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In a Vero Beach, Florida, supermarket, Susan Wiles rode her motorized cart through the produce aisle. In any year other than 2020 or 2021, this would have been a routine trip to the grocery store. But in 2020, Mrs. Wiles was missing an accessory that had become ubiquitous in society during that year: a face mask. Despite causing a commotion, Mrs. Wiles stood by her decision, claiming that the concerns about COVID-19 were overblown: “I don’t fall for this. It’s not what they say it is.” Mrs. Wiles’ statement is emblematic of the year 2020. This is not the …

Maritime Magic: How Cruise Lines Can Avoid State Law Compliance Through Passenger Contracts, Cameron Chuback

University of Miami Law Review

Florida Statutes section 381.00316 prohibits businesses in Florida from requiring consumers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination to access businesses’ goods and services. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (“NCLH”) has recently challenged section 381.00316’s applicability to its cruise operations because NCLH believes that requiring its passengers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination is the one constant that allows NCLH’s cruise ships to smoothly access foreign ports, which have differing COVID-19 protocols and rules. In Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of NCLH on this …

Hiding In Plain Language: A Solution To The Pandemic Riddle Of A Suspended Grand Jury, An Expiring Statute Of Limitations, And The Fifth Amendment, Nicole D. Mariani

University of Miami Law Review

Under the statute of limitations applicable to most federal crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a), “no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense, not capital, unless the indictment is found or the information is instituted within five years next after such offense shall have been committed.” That long-standing, generally uncontroversial procedural statute was thrust into the spotlight in 2020, when courts, prosecutors, and criminal defendants confronted an unprecedented and extraordinary scenario.
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many federal district courts suspended grand juries to prevent the spread of the highly contagious life-threatening virus through group congregation. Indeed, …

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

Look Who's Talking: Conscience, Complicity, And Compelled Speech, B. Jessie Hill

Indiana Law Journal

Compelled speech claims, which arise under the Free Speech Clause, and complicity claims, which usually arise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), are structurally similar. In each case, an individual claims that the government is forcing her to participate in a particular act that violates her religious or moral beliefs and imperatives, sending a false and undesired message to others and causing a form of spiritual or dignitary harm. It is therefore no surprise that compelled speech claims are often raised together with complicity claims in cases where religious individuals challenge the application of generally applicable laws to themselves. …

Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …

Afterword: Latcrit At Twenty-Five And Beyond, Part Ii - Challenges And/As Opportunities: Centering "Hybridized" Advocacy Projects In Antisubordination Praxis To Connect Campuses And Communities For Material Long-Term Progress, Francisco Valdes, Steven W. Bender, Jennifer J. Hill

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …