First Amendment Right to Receive Information and Ideas Justifies Citizens\u27 Videotaping of the Police

Several courts have declared that members of the public have a First Amendment-protected right to film or videotape the police. At least one legal commentator has posited that this right falls within three of the five textually-based freedoms of the First Amendment - the Speech, Press, and Petition Clauses. This right to receive information and ideas is a corollary of the right to speak that triggers the First Amendment interests of not only speakers, but also audiences. This right to receive information and ideas applies in the context of citizens recording the police. The public has a right to know how law enforcement officials treat citizens in encounters. This essay examines the history and dimension of the First Amendment right to receive information and ideas, a concept that has appeared in many different strands of First Amendment law. The essay also explains that the public should have a First Amendment right to receive information about the performance (or lack thereof) of law enforcement officials

Blogs and the First Amendment

An essay discussing the First Amendment implications of blogs

Balancing Act : Public Employees and Free Speech

More than 20 million Americans work for federal, state or local governments. Sometimes these employees are disciplined for speaking out against government corruption, belonging to a particular political party, criticizing agency policy or engaging in private conduct of which the employer disapproves. Granted, government employers need some leeway when dealing with their employees. After all, the primary function of a government agency is to provide efficient services to the public, and if a government employer were second-guessed every time it disciplined a public employee, services could grind to a halt. On the other hand, such employers do not have unfettered discretion to discipline employees whose speech content they dislike. Like any other public entity, a government employer must conform to principles set forth in the First Amendment

The Content-Discrimination Principle and the Impact of Reed v. Town of Gilbert

The content-discrimination principle remains the chief analytical tool used in First Amendment jurisprudence. Under this doctrine, laws are categorized as content-based or content-neutral. Content-based laws are subject to strict scrutiny and content-neutral ones are subject to intermediate scrutiny. The U.S. Supreme Court ratcheted up the content-discrimination principle in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Previously, lower courts were divided on whether a law was content-based if the underlying purpose was not to engage in censorship or content-discrimination. In Reed, however, the Court declared that the law’s purpose is not the central inquiry. It concluded that if a law draws facial distinctions based on speech then it is content-based. This Article examines the Court’s decision in Reed and then assesses how this doctrine intersects and interacts with two long–standing and controversial doctrines in First Amendment law: (1) the commercial-speech doctrine; and (2) the secondary-effects doctrine. Under both of these doctrines, content-based laws involving commercial speech or adult-oriented, sexual expression are treated as content-neutral. These doctrines are seemingly irreconcilable with Reed

Does Capital Punishment Have a Future? : A Resource Guide for Teachers

The resource guide is intended to help teachers lead students through an exploration of the application of capital punishment in the United States. It offers substantive information about landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases affirming the constitutionality of the dearth penalty, establishing limits for its imposition, and setting legal procedures for judicial review. It explores the philosophical arguments for and against the death penalty, the social context for the death penalty debate, and current international perspectives. Understanding capital punishment and the issues it raises for the American legal system is necessary for students to become fully functioning citizens in a constitutional democracy

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: The Court’s Premier Defender of the Fourth Amendment

This essay posits that Justice Sotomayor is the Court’s chief defender of the Fourth Amendment and the cherished values it protects. She has consistently defended Fourth Amendment freedoms—in majority, concurring, and especially in dissenting opinions. Part I recounts a few of her majority opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. Part II examines her concurring opinion in United States v. Jones. Part III examines several of her dissenting opinions in Fourth Amendment cases. A review of these opinions demonstrates what should be clear to any observer of the Supreme Court: Justice Sotomayor consistently defends Fourth Amendment principles and values

Justice Clarence Thomas: The Emergence of a Commercial-Speech Protector

An examination of Justice Clarence Thomas\u27 jurisprudence regarding commercial speech

Losing the Spirit of Tinker v. Des Moines and the Urgent Need to Protect Student Speech

This essay first examines the Tinker case and reminds readers of the powerful language Justice Fortas used in his majority opinion. It explains that the test from Tinker was designed to be a speech-protective standard for student litigants. The second part of the essay evaluates several recent cases, which demonstrate that the once speech-protective standard in Tinker has become a test that is often favorable and deferential to school officials embroiled in student, free-speech controversies