First Amendment Commons^™

To Be Seen But Not Heard: How The Internet’S Negative Impact On Minors’ Constitutional Right To Privacy, Speech, And Autonomy Creates A Need For Empathy-By-Design, Jon M. Garon

Mercer Law Review

This Article reviews the rights of individuals younger than eighteen to engage in their daily activities, now often mediated through online service providers, learning management systems, and other technological intermediaries. Unlike prior generations, modern adolescents must navigate the complex world of online society in addition to their family life, school day, and the time they spend away from school at work or in social activities.

This project includes concerns over bullying and harassment, contractual rights, social media policies, child pornography laws, revenge pornography laws, and end-user license agreements.

The Protection Of Freedom Of Expression From Social Media Platforms, András Koltay

Mercer Law Review

Social media platforms have overturned the previously known system of public communication. As predicted at the outset, the spread of the public Internet that started three decades ago has resulted in a paradigm shift in this field. Now, anyone can publish their opinion outside the legacy media, at no significant cost, and can become known and be discussed by others. Due to the technological characteristics of the Internet, it might also be expected that this kind of mass expression, with such an abundance of content, would necessitate the emergence of gatekeepers, similar in function to the ones that existed earlier …

Amazon’S Prime Reliance On The First Amendment’S Free Expression Protections In Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., V. Amazon.Com, Inc., Avery Hart Hayes

Mercer Law Review

Is freedom of expression sometimes more important than one’s reputation and religious inclusion? Spoiler alert—the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals says yes.

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Defamation law has existed for centuries; however, it was not until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s that the Supreme Court of the United States considered defamation law in conjunction with the First Amendment. Since then, the protections of the First Amendment are especially heightened when it comes to published criticism of public officials and public figures. The rationale …

The Public Benefits Of Press Specialness, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

In many circumstances, a broad umbrella of shared rights for the press and the public is perfectly adequate. But there are also times when statutorily, and even constitutionally, we should be providing unique protection to those who, if granted rights beyond those available to all speakers, will use those rights to benefit society as a whole. In these areas, our ongoing refusal to conceptualize and legally recognize the specialness of the press function has robbed us of public benefits.

The Freedom of Information Act context is a perfect illustration of this. Federal agencies are so swamped by requesters with non-newsworthy, …

Mandatory Narrated Ultrasounds: A First Amendment Perspective On Abortion Regulations, Abigail Tubin

Fordham Law Review

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right to terminate a pregnancy in Roe v. Wade, many state legislatures have passed myriad regulations intended to complicate the process of obtaining an abortion. These regulations include “informed consent” provisions, such as the mandatory narrated ultrasound, which impose strict disclosure requirements on physicians who seek to perform abortions. Since these regulations compel physicians to speak when they otherwise might not, these laws implicate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. As a result, physicians looking to perform abortions have an alternative avenue, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, for challenging …

The Coddling Of The American Worker's Mind: The Anti-Free Speech Nature Of Popular Labor Law Reforms, Daniel V. Johns

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

As the nation enters an era in which a new presidential administration will likely push such labor law reforms, it is worth considering whether transparently anti-free speech reform measures make sense for the future of labor policy and law. This Article argues that they do not. Because employee free choice is furthered, not diminished, by hearing both sides of an issue, American workers should have the opportunity to hear and evaluate employer speech in the course of union campaigns. Only then can employees make an informed decision about their workplace future. In the end, freedom of speech furthers employee freedom …

Reassociating Student Rights: Giving It The Ole College Try, Tyler Mlakar

Arkansas Law Review

At the beginning of 2020, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared Coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) a “public health emergency of international concern.” Governments around the world began instituting citywide and even nationwide “lockdowns.” In the United States, the approach was far more splintered. While there was no nationwide lockdown, states across the country instituted varying measures ranging from “shelter-in-place” and “stay at home” orders, to school closures, limits on the size of public gatherings, “mask mandates,” and even some states allowing restaurants and bars to remain open. Across the United States, these measures have resulted in the most pervasive governmental …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

Lost In The Bubble, Jethro K. Lieberman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Using Waller To Uphold First And Sixth Amendment Rights Throughout The Covid-19 Pandemic, Maya Chaudhuri

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

In The Right to a Public Trial in the Time of COVID-19, Professor Stephen Smith argued that the COVID-19 pandemic justified an almost categorical suspension of the right to a public trial. Judges have relied on Smith’s Article to justify closure decisions made without the constitutionally required specific findings. These are part of a larger pattern of improper closure determinations, many made without fully considering alternatives to closure, since the beginning of the pandemic that threatens the rights of individuals with criminal cases and the collective rights of the public. But the Constitution has no pandemic exception, and it …

Federally Mandated Online Sales Tax: A Logistical Solution For The Future Of E-Commerce, Daniel O'Connor

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Economic Structural Transformation And Litigation: Evidence From Chinese Provinces, To Economic Change And Restructuring, Doug Bujakowski, Joan Schmit

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The "Business Interruption" Insurance Coverage Conundrum: Covid-19 Presents A Challenge, Paul E. Traynor

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Misalighned Incentives In Markets: Envisioning Finance That Benefits All Of Society, Dr. Ryan Clements

DePaul Business & Commercial Law Journal

No abstract provided.

An Easy Sell: The Third Circuit Protects Religious Advertising In Colts V. Freethought, William Zachary Mineo

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Like, Comment, Or Subscribe—Unless You Are A Prisoner: How Prisoners’ First Amendment Rights Are Thwarted For Penological Interests, Jerome Shaen

Villanova Law Review (1956 - )

No abstract provided.

Opening Remarks, Danielle Kerker Goldstein, Mary Anne Bobinski, Samantha Harrell

Randolph W. Thrower Symposium

No abstract provided.

On Criminalizing Violent Speech, Amitai Etzioni

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

There is an increasingly high number of threats to kill, made by citizens against each other, and against public officials. These threats terrorize people, force them to take protective measures, make them reluctant to assume public office, and, when they do, make them feel as though they have to act cautiously. State and federal laws currently exist that prohibit such threats. This article examines the ways the courts have affected how these laws function. It concludes by suggesting ways these laws can be rendered more effective. Drawing on liberal communitarianism, this article seeks to offer practical recommendations for how the …

The Case Of The Smart City, Bruce Peabody, Kyle Morgan

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

January 7, 2021, marked the seventy-fifth anniversary of Marsh v. Alabama, the case in which the Supreme Court of the United States extended the protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to a privately held “company town.” This article makes the case that the longstanding Marsh precedent, and the basic jurisprudential framework it set out, remain important in working through twenty-first century problems regarding public-private partnerships and their impact on constitutional rights. We bring this old ruling into our new century by extrapolating a hypothetical legal controversy from legislation currently under consideration in the states. Thus, the heart of our …

The Disappearing Freedom Of The Press, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

At this moment of unprecedented decline of local news and amplified attacks on the American press, attention is turning to the protection the Constitution might provide to journalism and the journalistic function. New signals that at least some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court might be willing to rethink the core press-protecting precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan has intensified these conversations. But this scholarly dialogue appears to be taking place against a mistaken foundational assumption: that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to articulate and embrace at least some notion of freedom of the press. Despite the First Amendment …