First Amendment Commons^™

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, John A. Meiser, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley, Eric D. Hageman, Justin M. Romeo, Lincoln Davis Wilson

Court Briefs

No. 20-1800
Harold Shurtleff v. City of Boston

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Invoking the specious rationale of “government speech,” the City of Boston unconstitutionally singled out religious expression for hostile treatment. By lumping speech based on “religion” together with speech deemed “inappropriate,” “offensive,” “discrimin[atory],” or “prejudice[d],” Pet.App.20, the City adopted the increasingly common view that promoting our Nation’s vibrant pluralism requires the exclusion of religious perspectives from the public square. But that view is antithetical to the Founders’ conception of religion as central—not peripheral—to …

Deepfake Privacy: Attitudes And Regulation, Matthew B. Kugler, Carly Pace

Northwestern University Law Review

Using only a series of images of a person’s face and publicly available software, it is now possible to insert the person’s likeness into a video and show them saying or doing almost anything. This “deepfake” technology has permitted an explosion of political satire and, especially, fake pornography. Several states have already passed laws regulating deepfakes, and more are poised to do so. This Article presents three novel empirical studies that assess public attitudes toward this new technology. In our main study, a representative sample of the U.S. adult population perceived nonconsensually created pornographic deepfake videos as extremely harmful and …

The Thirteenth Amendment And One Hundred And Fifty Years Of Struggle To Criminalize Slavery: A First Amendment Challenge To The Forced Labor Act (18 U.S.C. § 1589), Niles Stefan Illich

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Choose Your Words Carefully: Reimagining Retaliatory Arrest After Nieves V. Bartlett, Ryan Hor

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2020, the United States experienced potentially its largest ever social movement in the protests against racial inequality. Predictably, protestors clashed with law enforcement officers, often leading to arrests. Arrested individuals could bring § 1983 retaliatory arrest claims alleging that the officers deprived them of their First Amendment right to free speech. Such claims underline the tension between two vital interests: free speech and law enforcement effectiveness. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Nieves v. Bartlett, which crafted a new framework for retaliatory arrest claims that consequently diminished a plaintiff’s chance to prevail and recover …

Media Consolidation & Political Polarization: Reviewing The National Television Ownership Rule, Mary R. Hornak

Fordham Law Review

Local television plays an important role in the democratic society. The medium is viewed as being trustworthy, and it is accessible and uniquely situated to report on matters of local interest. Among other roles, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates firms’ ownership interests in the media through regulations that permit a certain degree of consolidation at both the local and national levels. Since 1996, Congress has mandated that the FCC regularly review broadcast media ownership regulations. Originally, this requirement mandated biennial review. In 2004, however, Congress revised the mandate, requiring review on a quadrennial basis and excluding from such review …

The Second Amendment Has Become A Threat To The First, Diana Palmer, Timothy Zick

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Free Speech Has Gotten Very Expensive: Rethinking Political Speech Regulation In A Post-Truth World, John A. Barrett, Jr.

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Protecting free speech has been a foundational principle of American democracy since the nation’s founding. A core element of free speech has long been a prohibition on regulating political speech. The principle behind this protection holds that citizens are free to make whatever political pronouncements they wish and that their speech shall remain free from government suppression. Even within the limited exceptions to unfettered political speech, like defamation or libel, the speech is not banned but may merely result in liability. A premise underlying this view is that competing viewpoints, by being made available to us all, will allow …

Absolute Publishing Power And Bulletproof Immunity: How Section 230 Shields Internet Service Providers From Liability And Makes It Impossible To Protect Your Reputation Online, Victoria Anderson

Seattle University Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Model Rule 8.4(G) And The Profession’S Core Values Problem, Michael Ariens

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

Model Rule 8.4(g) declares it misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The American Bar Association (ABA) adopted the rule in 2016 in large part to effectuate the third of its four mission goals: Eliminate Bias and Enhance Diversity. The ABA adopted these goals in 2008, and they continue to serve as ABA’s statement of its mission.

A …

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Lgbtqia+ Public Accomodation Cases: The Battle Between Religious Freedom And Civil Rights, Jamie Reinah

Fordham Law Review

Protections for LGBTQIA+ Americans have greatly expanded since the U.S. Supreme Court recognized marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, but the debate about whether business owners can refuse to serve LGBTQIA+ couples on religious grounds has grown more bitterly divided. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental constitutional right, and it is strongly protected at both the federal and state levels. At the same time, LGBTQIA+ couples are protected from receiving unequal treatment in public places under state antidiscrimination laws. The clash between religion and LGBTQIA+ rights has culminated in a line of cases that present difficult questions …

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Special Matters: Filtering Privileged Materials In Federal Prosecutions, Christina Frohock

Articles

This Article reviews the U.S. Department of Justice's toolbox for handling potentially privileged materials, with close attention to the evolution from filter teams to the Special Matters Unit in fraud prosecutions. Significant case opinions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth, and Eleventh Circuits reveal the judiciary's diverse views on filter teams. The recent case of United States v. Esformes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, now on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, illustrates how a filter team can fall short and draw unflattering attention to the Department of Justice. In the …

Breathing Room For The Right Of Assembly, Tabatha Abu El-Haj

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

This Article explores the legal and political fault lines that the wave of protests highlighting police violence and systemic racism in the summer of 2020 reveal. It focuses in depth on Detroit, Michigan, as a window into the ways that the First Amendment, as currently construed, under-protects those seeking political change and racial reckoning by demonstrating in the streets.

Taking Exception To Assessments Of American Exceptionalism: Why The United States Isn’T Such An Outlier On Free Speech, Evelyn Mary Aswad

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

One of the most significant challenges to human freedom in the digital age involves the sheer power of private companies over speech and the fact that power is untethered to existing free speech principles. Heated debates are ongoing about what standards social media companies should adopt to regulate speech on their platforms. Some have argued that global social media companies, such as Facebook and Twitter, should align their speech codes with the international human rights law standards of the United Nations (“U.N.”). Others have countered that U.S.-based companies should apply First Amendment standards. Much of this debate is premised on …

Equal Justice Under Law: Navigating The Delicate Balance Between Religious Liberty And Marriage Equality, Meg Penrose

Faculty Scholarship

This Article discusses the current state of the law and offers thoughts on its future. Part Il provides a brief overview of the legal landscape involved in the clash between religious liberty and same-sex marriage From Justice Scalia's seminal religious liberty test to the evolution of same- sex marriage, Part Il describes the current law. Part III introduces the reader to public accommodations laws. After providing this brief history, Part Ill discusses three Supreme Court cases that could have resolved the religious liberty versus marriage equality question. Part IV looks ahead and draws analogies to the 1960s religious liberty objections …

Mad About The First Amendment, Our Beacon For Liberty, Equality And Democracy, Nicholas Allard

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Paradox Of Free Speech In The Digital World: First Amendment Friendly Proposals For Promoting User Agency, Nadine Strossen

Articles & Chapters

The United States Supreme Court has continued a speech-protective trend dating back to the 1960s, safeguarding even the most controversial speech from government regulation, including speech that critics of this trend label with the stigmatizing terms "hate speech," "disinformation," "misinformation," "extremist speech," and "terrorist speech." In contrast, as dominant online platforms have become increasingly important forums for both individual self-expression and democratic discourse, the platforms have been issuing and enforcing increasing restrictions on their users' speech pursuant to each platform's content moderation policies. These restrictions often suppress speech that the U.S. Constitution bars government from suppressing. As private sector entities, …

Deceive, Profit, Repeat: Public Deception Schemes To Conceal Product Dangers, Wes Henricksen

Cardozo Law Review

Companies in numerous industries have misled the public by hiding the dangers posed by their products. Sugar manufacturers hid the dangers of high fructose corn syrup and misdirected the public’s attention to fat, causing an epidemic of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Opioid manufacturers hid the dangers and addictiveness of opioid painkillers, leading to the opioid crisis. Fossil fuel companies misled the public about the causes, certainty, and effects of global warming, resulting in massive unregulated CO2 emissions and causing one of the greatest threats to humankind. This Article identifies all such schemes as belonging to a category of wrongs …