Posts tagged as:

First Amendment

A Sixth Circuit panel declines to strike down a state law under which public schools will no longer withhold union dues from teachers’ salaries. The Michigan Education Association had claimed that Public Act 53 interfered with its First Amendment right to speak. [David Shepardson, Detroit News]

{ 2 comments }

I’ve got a short critique up now at Cato (earlier on the topic here). Proponents styled the enactment “Grace’s Law,” after a Howard County teenager who committed suicide; here’s Radley Balko on why “Laws named after crime victims and dead people are usually a bad idea.” While I believe the courts will eventually get around to striking it down, in the mean time the law will operate to chill some online speech.

P.S. Some recent thoughts from EFF’s Hanni Fakhoury on how laws can address the problem of harassment without being speech-unfriendly.

{ 3 comments }

Yes, on the First Amendment he’s been pretty decent, but as to the rest, surely you jest, Ms. Kaminer [Jacob Sullum]

{ 1 comment }

Guns roundup

by Walter Olson on February 5, 2013

{ 1 comment }

Free speech roundup

by Walter Olson on January 18, 2013

  • Spirit Airlines v. DOT: “Government Can’t Silence Speech Criticizing Its Actions, Even If That Speech Is ‘Commercial’” [Ilya Shapiro/Sophie Cole, Cato]
  • Virginia Supreme Court speedily rejects prior restraint against Yelp review [Paul Alan Levy, Volokh, earlier]
  • Why schools crack down on speech [Hans Bader]
  • “Mann v. Steyn — CEI SLAPPs Back” [Adler, earlier]
  • Hellhole jurisdictions? “The seven countries where the state can execute you for being atheist” [Max Fisher, WaPo] “Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam” [FoxNews] Pakistan mob burns man accused of desecrating Koran alive [Reuters] And see, via Volokh, blasphemy penalties from Tunisia (seven years for posting Mohammed cartoons) and Egypt.
  • “Congressman-Elect Kerry Bentivolio Sued Me For Calling Him a ‘Deadbeat Santa’” [Mike Betzold, Deadline Detroit]
  • UK government agrees to rollback of law criminalizing insults [Telegraph, Independent]

{ 4 comments }

So is that prior restraint? [Washington Post on Virginia case, background; Brian Wolfman and Paul Alan Levy, Public Citizen] More: Ken at Popehat.

I’ve expanded into a longer Cato post my item about how (according to the New York Times) incoming French president François Hollande demanded and got the dismissal of the editor of Le Figaro, the leading opposition (conservative) newspaper. If you think such things would never happen in this country, you might want to catch up on a couple of stories from Chicago and Boston. The post is here.

P.S. They’re still fighting in Washington over media cross-ownership rules.

Eugene Volokh:

I’m pleased to report that I filed a friend-of-the-court brief, on behalf of the Cato Institute, Dale Carpenter, and myself, arguing that wedding photographers (and other speakers) have a First Amendment right to choose what expression they create, including by choosing not to photograph same-sex commitment ceremonies. All the signers of the brief support same-sex marriage rights; our objection is not to same-sex marriages, but to compelling photographers and other speakers [to create] works that they don’t want to create.

As Ilya Shapiro explains further at Cato, the litigation before the New Mexico Supreme Court hinges in substantial part on whether the photographers are entitled to claim religious-liberty protection against the discrimination claim, but the Cato amicus brief advances a distinct alternative theory under which they deserve to prevail:

Our brief explains that photography is an art form protected by the First Amendment because clients seek out the photographer’s method of staging, posing, lighting, and editing. Photography is thus a form of expression subject to the First Amendment’s protection, unlike many other wedding-related businesses (e.g., caterers, hotels, limousine drivers).

The amicus brief in Elane Photography v. Willock is here; I’m happy to say I played a bit part in helping to advance it. Earlier on the case here, here, and here; and more from George Will.

{ 8 comments }

Josh Blackman has a summary, including the Justice’s memories of Charles Reich’s constitutional law class at Yale, his commentaries on cases from the last Supreme Court term, and a proposal to carve the faces of Federalist Society founders Lee Liberman, David McIntosh, Peter Keisler, and Steve Calabresi on Mount Rushmore.

P.S. And on the Citizens United decision [BLT]:

Alito said arguments can be made for overturning Citizens United, but not the popular one that boils down to one line: Corporations shouldn’t get free speech rights like a person.

“It is pithy, it fits on a bumper sticker, and in fact a variety of bumper stickers are available,” Alito told a crowd of about 1,400 at The Federalist Society’s annual dinner. He cited two: “End Corporate Personhood,” and “Life does not begin at incorporation.”

Then Alito pointed out the same people do not question the First Amendment rights of media corporations in cases like The New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Pentagon papers case. If corporations did not have free speech rights, newspapers would lose such cases, he said.

“Scapegoating Free Speech”

by Walter Olson on September 29, 2012

Hans Bader on the curious insistence on blaming the Benghazi attack on a YouTube video [CEI] Greg Lukianoff responds to Eric Posner on blasphemy laws [HuffPo, earlier] “Uh oh. The Atlantic gets in the game of trolling the First Amendment.” [Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry on this by Garrett Epps, earlier on Epps]

P.S. Ken at Popehat rates the President’s U.N. speech mostly good, with a few lapses. “It’s time for Canada to repeal its prohibition on blasphemous libel.” [Derek From, Canadian Constitution Foundation Justice Report] And in the “Pastitsios” affair, advocates of free speech in Greece are protesting the blasphemy arrest of a 27 year old man over his website, which makes fun of a well-known deceased Orthodox monk. [BoingBoing]

{ 3 comments }

University of Chicago lawprof Eric Posner was just kidding in this Slate piece, trying to make us see how craven and unworthy some of his colleagues in the legal academy are for seeking to temper our First Amendment liberties in deference to opinion abroad. Right? Right? [David Frum, Julian Sanchez on Twitter, Andrew Stuttaford, Robert Shibley] Related: Matt Welch.

{ 11 comments }

Someone who’s sued a past employer might be eager to keep that fact off the search-engine record, but the First Amendment protects the right to disseminate information of that sort. [Volokh]

{ 1 comment }

Free speech roundup

by Walter Olson on July 11, 2012

  • Political bloggers prevail in cases where Maryland, Massachusetts judges sought to enjoin them from blogging [Hans Bader, Popehat on Maryland and Massachusetts cases, Bader and Popehat updating Berkshire case] Who might have “SWATted” Aaron Walker? [Patterico] No point asking Salon’s Alex Pareene [same]
  • Supreme Court’s fractured First Amendment theories in U.S. v. Alvarez, the Stolen Valor case [Eugene Volokh] Ruling could benefit commercial speakers in cases like Nike [Richard Samp, WLF] Court got it wrong, says Richard Epstein [Hoover]
  • Controversial cartoonist sends many takedown demands to critics who reproduce her work in the course of criticizing it [Rob Beschizza, BoingBoing, Popehat]
  • Interview with Charles Brownstein, who directs the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund [Nick Farr, Abnormal Use]
  • “Even pointing people toward that blog could constitute further defamation.” [Popehat on case of Ranaan Katz (Miami Heat), more, PoL]
  • “Malaysian Arrest of Borders Clerk for Selling Allegedly Blasphemous Book” [Volokh] “Debunk a ‘Miracle’ – Go to Jail for Blasphemy In India” [Ronald Bailey]
  • Careful about pouncing on The Oatmeal, you might suffer a quicksand-like fate [Greenfield, Paul Alan Levy,Popehat]

Tim Carney, the influential columnist at the D.C. Examiner, writes as if libertarians have been AWOL or worse when it comes to defending religious liberty from the incursions of the modern liberal-bureaucratic state. I try to set him straight in a new post at Cato at Liberty. More: Carney responds; Jordan Bloom, The American Conservative; Rick Esenberg.

{ 4 comments }

Florida cops have made a practice of ticketing drivers who warn others about speed traps by flashing their lights, despite uncertainty as to whether state law actually does prohibit such flashing. Now a judge in Sanford, Fla. has ruled that Ryan Kintner of Lake Mary not only was within his rights under state law when he flashed his headlights, but was engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment. [More, Jalopnik, Volokh; Orlando Sentinel] (& welcome Above the Law, Reason, Cato at Liberty, Amy Alkon readers)

{ 7 comments }

George Will gets to the essence of this grotesque assault on civil liberties, fed by demagoguery over the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision:

McGovern [Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.] stresses that his amendment decrees that “all corporate entities — for-profit and nonprofit alike” — have no constitutional rights. So Congress — and state legislatures and local governments — could regulate to the point of proscription political speech, or any other speech, by the Sierra Club, the National Rifle Association, NARAL Pro-Choice America or any of the other tens of thousands of nonprofit corporate advocacy groups, including political parties and campaign committees.

Newspapers, magazines, broadcasting entities, online journalism operations — and most religious institutions — are corporate entities. McGovern’s amendment would strip them of all constitutional rights.

Incredibly, versions of this radical rights-stripping measure has been endorsed through resolutions by the state legislatures of Vermont, Hawaii, and New Mexico, with backing from groups like Public Citizen. [Ilya Shapiro and Kathleen Hunker, Cato; Hans Bader, CEI; earlier] More: Professor Bainbridge (“utterly moronic”)] Among sponsors of this extraordinary measure: Reps. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.), David Cicilline (R.I.), Steve Cohen (Tenn.), John Conyers, Jr. (Mich.), Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Peter DeFazio (Ore.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.), Sam Farr (Calif.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Gene Green (Tex.), Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), Janice Hahn (Calif.), Martin Heinrich (N.M.), Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (Ill.), Walter B. Jones, Jr. (N.C.), Barbara Lee (Calif.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), Christopher Murphy (Ct.), Richard Neal (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), John Olver (Mass.), Chellie Pingree (Maine), Louise McIntosh Slaughter (N.Y.), Adam Smith (Wash.), John Tierney (Mass.), and Peter Welch (Vt.). Murphy is running for an open U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut.

{ 12 comments }

Marc Randazza

by Walter Olson on March 16, 2012

Marc Randazza is a prominent First Amendment lawyer who has been a friend to this site and many others. Popehat, Eric Turkewitz, Amy Alkon and back-in-commission Scott Greenfield are all posting well-merited appreciations.

{ 3 comments }

Prof. Lyrissa Lidsky at Prawfsblawg, in contrast to some other academics, agrees that the First Amendment needs to be taken seriously in considering proposals for “criminalizing ‘adolescent cruelty.’” Scott Greenfield is not reassured.