Tagged: First Amendment law

0

FAN 53.1 (First Amendment News) U. Maryland Law to Host Conference: “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Business”

e5eb96fc377fcf9f7e18eb56d245dca1The 2015 Symposium (March 27th), “The Impact of the First Amendment on American Businesses,” will facilitate a discussion on the effects and consequences of First Amendment jurisprudence on businesses. The symposium will specifically cover the areas of commercial speech, religious exemptions for businesses, and rights of businesses to use technology appropriately. This event will be located at University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and is open to anyone interested in attending, including students, lawyers, and scholars.

Welcome and Introductory Remarks
Dean Donald TobinUniversity of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

Keynote Speaker 1
Travis LeBlanc, Federal Communications Commission

Panel 1: First Amendment and Commercial Speech Relating to Health

Jane Bambauer, University of Arizona School of Law
Adam Candeub, Michigan State University College of Law
Stephanie Greene, Boston College & Greene LLP
Kathleen Hoke, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Wendy Wagner, University of Texas at Austin School of Law

Panel 2: First Amendment and Technology

Hillary Greene,  University of Connecticut School of Law
James Grimmelmann, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Glenn Kaleta, Microsoft Corporation
Renee Knake, Michigan State University College of Law
Neil Richards, Washington University School of Law
Felix Wu, Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Panel 3: Religious Exemptions for Corporations

Caroline Corbin, University of Miami School of Law
Michelle Harner, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
Louise Melling, American Civil Liberties Union
Jennifer Taub, Vermont Law School
Nelson Tebbe, Brooklyn Law School

Keynote Speaker 2

Tamara PietyUniversity of Tulsa School of Law

Closing Remarks

Danielle CitronUniversity of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

For additional information, please contact Joella Roland, Executive Symposium & Manuscripts Editor, via email at JoellaRoland@UMaryland.edu.

ht: Neil Richards 

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 53 (First Amendment News) Justice Sotomayor joins in discussion of Burt Neuborne’s New Book (“Madison’s Music”)

[My colleague Anthony Kennedy’s] approach to [the First Amendment], unlike some of my other colleagues,  is born on a very, very, almost fanatical belief that . . . the essence of democracy is no regulation of speech. Justice Sonia Sotomayor (March 13, 2015)

How could the pie get much sweeter? I mean, who among us is so fortunate as to have a sitting Supreme Court Justice travel to discuss a book we have just published?

Answer: Professor Burt Neuborne.

It is as rare as it is true — on March 13, 2015 Justice Sonia Sotomayor ventured to New York University Law School to join with Dean Trevor Morrison to discuss (for one hour or so) Neuborne’s Madison’s Music: On Reading the First Amendment (The New Press, 2015).  

Burt Neuborne, left, Sonia Sotomayor, & Trevor Morrison

Professor Burt Neuborne, left, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, & Dean Trevor Morrison

As it turned out, the pie did get sweeter when Justice Sotomayor first praised and then commented  on  Madison’s Music: “It’s a fun book for someone who’s not immersed in the law,” she said. “It’s so well written that I heard Burt’s voice in my head as I was reading it. I consider that the highest of compliments to an author.”

Later she asked: “You say that the focus of the First Amendment is democracy. You invite your thesis as a different way of interpreting the Constitution. So who decides what promotes democracy? People disagree about it all the time. How do you define democracy? Is it something like one person, one vote? What are its structures?”

Neuborne: “I’m sort of shocked that you asked that, because it’s clear that I define it,” he said jokingly, to audience laughter. “But Sotomayor prevailed with the wry rejoinder, ‘No, no, no, you forget, I do,’ “prompting an eruption of mirth and applause.”

“I don’t know what will be the final denouement of a judicial discussion about whether unlimited campaign spending is the best way to have a good democracy or a bad democracy,” Neuborne added. “But I would rather have judges asking that question among themselves than pretending to decide the case by deciding what seven words mean — ‘Congress shall make no law abridging speech’ — and having it be sort of automatic, without even thinking about the consequences for democracy.”

When Neuborne took issue with the Roberts Court’s campaign finance line of cases, Justice Sotomayor asked: “How does a Madisonian judge strike on balance [when it comes to those] laws?” To which Neuborne replied: “Great question.” He then proceeded to discuss cases going back to Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and up to the Court’s latest rulings in this area. He took pointed exception to the Court’s “narrow, bribery, quid quo pro definition of corruption.”

Speaking in a very animated way, Neuborne was equally critical of the Court’s notion (one that “I genuinely . . . don’t understand”) that “contributions can create a risk of corruption because you give the money directly to a candidate, but the unlimited spending of money, without coordination with the candidate, doesn’t create a risk of corruption . . . .” He thought that citizens and judges alike need to ask themselves: “What kind of democracy are we trying to protect here?”

Returning more directly to his answer to Justice Sotomayor’s question, Neuborne remarked: “Everybody’s political power should be equal in a democracy, and money shouldn’t corrupt that idea. . . . I think if they adopted a Madisonian reading of the First Amendment  we would change campaign financing regulation overnight.”

Neuborne on Justice Anthony Kennedy

[Justice Kennedy is] the most important First Amendment Judge that has ever sat on the Supreme Court. . . . 

Federal Judges Get Free Book

At the outset of his remarks Professor Neuborne thanked his publisher, The New Press, “a non-profit press that remembers the responsibility of a truly free press in placing new and challenging ideas before the public, and who has helped in making the book available both to every federal judge and in donating the books outside [here today] for you.” 

There is much more, about democracy, free speech, substantive due process, the Second, Third, and Ninth Amendments, media corporations, partisan gerrymandering, and the rule of unelected judges. See video of the event here.

I will be doing a Q&A with Professor Neuborne concerning his new book, the First Amendment, and other things that matter to those in the First Amendment community (divided as it is).

On Corporations: Point – Counterpoint 

 Adam Liptak, “First Amendment, ‘Patron Saint’ of Protesters, Is Embraced by Corporations,” NYT, March 23, 2015

Damon Root, “The New York Times, a Corporation, Worries That the First Amendment Is Now ‘Embraced by Corporations,'” Reason.com, March 24, 2015

Amanda Shanor

Amanda Shanor

“Adam Smith’s First Amendment” — DC Circuit Comes Under Fire

That is the title of a new essay by Robert Post and Amanda Shanor, one that appears in the Harvard Law Review Forum. What troubles the authors is the “recent and aggressive expansion of commercial speech doctrine,” one that they argue has resulted in a “striking turn in our constitutional order.”

The essay was prompted by a decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case named Edwards v. District of Columbia (2014). (Ms Shanor, a Yale PhD in law candidate and a Yale Law School graduate, is a former law clerk to Judges Judith Rogers (2012-2013) and to Cornelia T.L. Pillard (2013-2014) of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.) Read More

0

FAN 52.1 (First Amendment News) Court denies review in false political ads law case

This morning the Court released its latest order list. The Court denied cert in Arneson v. 281 Care Committee (see state’s cert. petition here). The Minnesota law challenged in the case provides:

A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who intentionally participates in the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political advertising or campaign material . . . with respect to the effect of a ballot question, that is designed or tends to . . . promote or defeat a ballot question, that is false, and that the person knows is false or communicates to others with reckless disregard of whether it is false.

Applying a strict scrutiny standard of review, the Eight Circuit ruled that the law was not narrowly tailored to comply with First Amendment requirements, though the Eight Circuit panel also ruled that the state attorney general was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

 Tomorrow the Supreme Court will issue opinions in argued cases (see listing below) and may do so again on Wednesday.

℘ ℘ ℘

The next great First Amendment battleground, it turns out, is on the back of your car. — Adam Liptak (2009)

UnknownThis morning at 10:00 a.m. ET the Court is hearing oral arguments in the Texas license plate case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. The case was argued by R. James George Jr. on behalf of the Respondent and by the state’s Solicitor General, Scott A. Keller. Some of the more notable amicus briefs were filed by:

See here re an earlier post re license plate cases breakdown of cases and sampling of scholarly literature.

THE COURT’S 2014-15 FREE EXPRESSION DOCKET

Review Granted

  1. Elonis v. United States (argued on 12-1-14)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (argued 1-20-15)
  3. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (argued on 1-12-15)
  4. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (license plate case) (argued 3-23-15)

Pending Petitions

  1. Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (license plate case)
  2. Thayer v. City of Worcester
  3. The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York (see Becket Fund amicus brief of Michael McConnell)
  4. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (re Mary Beth Tinker amicus brief)
  5. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al.
  6. Apel v. United States (Erwin Chemerinsky, counsel of record)

Review Denied

  1. Arneson v. 281 Care Committee
  2. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen
  3. Kagan v. City of New Orleans
  4. Clayton v. Niska
  5. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  6. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  7. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  8. Mehanna v. United States
  9. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission
  10. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell
1

Guest Contributor — Floyd Abrams, “Liberty is Liberty”

Floyd Abrams speaking at Temple Law School

Floyd Abrams speaking at Temple Law School

Following my post entitled “Floyd Abrams on ‘the greatest threats to free speech in this country,'” a number of readers asked where they might find the entire text of Mr. Abrams’ March 16, 2015 remarks at Temple University, Beasley School of Law (the Arlin & Neysa Adams Lecture).  

I contacted Mr. Abrams and he kindly agreed to let me post his lecture, the text of which is set out below. I have added hyperlinks to the text. — RKLC

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

A few weeks ago I read a blog post on Concurring Opinions. The post (entitled “First Amendment News”) is prepared weekly by Professor Ronald Collins and deals, in a particularly knowledgeable and even-handed manner, with the First Amendment in the courts, in legislatures, in academia, and elsewhere. In it, he summarized and attached a recent “workplan” of the American Civil Liberties Union. In eight pages, it listed nine priorities for the ACLU for 2015, ranging from reproductive rights (listed first) to mass incarcerations. Freedom of speech was not among the listed priorities and was referred to in only the most passing manner, an extraordinary omission for an organization formed for the prime purpose of defending that right and probably more associated with doing so than any other entity.

The ACLU later responded, pointing to a number of activities on its part aimed at protecting the First Amendment. Before it did so, however, another scholar — Professor Howard Wasserman — had responded to the blog with a provocative thesis. “One possible (if not entirely accurate) answer,” Professor Wasserman wrote of the ACLU’s omission, was this: “We won. There are no ‘major civil liberties battles’ to be fought or won with respect to the freedom of speech.”

I have little doubt that Professor Wasserman didn’t mean to be taken too literally and I won’t seek to do so. But his observation did lead me to try to identify for myself what the greatest free speech civil liberties battles are today. Fortunately, we have no incidents such as in France of terrorists murdering journalists because they are offended by their offerings. Or, as in Russia, of journalists critical of the government being killed with disturbing and suspicious regularity. We have no examples of journalists being jailed, as in Turkey, because their writings outrage the regime in power. Or of direct governmental efforts to censor speech, as in India, by barring the televising of a documentary dealing with rape. Or of the Internet being censored, as in China, with the assistance of over two million people employed to monitor online conduct. Or of broadcasters being censored when they criticize the government, as in Venezuela. I could go on all too easily.

℘℘℘

So what is the greatest threat to free speech in this country? And where is it? There are obviously major issues relating to the potential impact of pervasive government surveillance on First Amendment freedoms. And those pesky issues relating to confidential sources of journalists — and as to who is a journalist — don’t seem to go away. And, of course, there are other issues.

Yet if I had to choose a topic and a locale, I think I would first look . . . right here. On this battleground. Oh, I don’t really mean here at Temple in particular. I don’t think I do, anyway.

The On-Campus Crisis 

But I do mean in colleges and universities, on campuses and in classrooms, by students and faculty and administrations. Around the country. This does not happen, as it might have many years ago when I was in college, simply because an all-powerful administration wanted complete control over all on-campus speech. (I well recall when, a few years ago, I entered Cornell that I was required to sign some document agreeing that I could be suspended for saying, doing or not doing just about anything of which the university disapproved, including not carrying the ID card they gave me saying just that.) Nor is it the result of pressure from powerful and wealthy alumni, a serious problem of the past.

If you’d like to see that sort of danger portrayed artistically, have a look at an old movie (even for me) called “The Male Animal” (1942), with Henry Fonda as a professor at risk of losing his position because he read a letter to his English class from Bartolomeo Vanzetti, an anarchist convicted – very probably unjustly – of murder in a most celebrated trial of the 1920s. Colleges were also under siege during the McCarthy era and many behaved badly, dismissing scholars for their supposed political views. And there have been a wide range of significant issues through the years.

Now, however, pressures on freedom of expression and all too often the actual suppression of free speech comes not from outside the academy but from within it. And much of it seems to come from a minority of students, who strenuously — and, I think it fair to say, contemptuously — disapprove of the views of speakers whose view of the world is different than theirs and who seek to prevent those views from being heard. The amount of students who will not tolerate the expression of views with which they differ is less important than the sad reality that repetitive acts of speech suppression within and by our academic institutions persist and seem to grow in amount. And that is shameful.

What, after all, other than shame is deserved by Brandeis for offering and then withdrawing an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Alia for her criticism of Islam; by the hostile atmosphere at Smith College that resulted in  Christine Lagarde’s withdrawal, the first woman to head the IMF, to speak to the graduating class; in Rutgers, for so embarrassing former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that she declined to appear. And for effectively withdrawing, George Will’s invitation to speak at Scripps College in California after controversy about the invitation.

And would you believe, as Chief Judge Loretta Preska of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York pointed out in a recent address, that when the College Republicans at Fordham University invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus, “the uproar caused the group unceremoniously to rescind the invitation.”

One should really not have to say that of all places, campuses should be most protective of the broadest level of freedom of speech. Or that speakers should be permitted to have their say, instead of being booed off stage as former New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was at Brown. Or shouted down, as Israeli officials have been, in threatening circumstances, and not permitted to speak on campuses. Or that it is disgraceful, as the findings of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (“FIRE”) reveal, that such topics as abortion, gay rights, and the “war on terror,” were “the cause of many disinvitation incidents,” that the amount of disinvitation incidents “has risen dramatically” over the past 15 years; and that Harvard – you’ve heard of Harvard, I’m sure – has the most disinvitation incidents. I don’t often quote William F. Buckley, Jr., but on hearing that, it’s hard not to recall his observation that “I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Boston telephone directory than the entire faculty at Harvard.”

What can one say about this other than to quote from the statement of the American Association of University Professors that, in the clearest language, observed that “[o]n a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed.” Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. put it well, when he was a Harvard undergraduate before the Civil War and was a student editor of Harvard Magazine. “We must,” he wrote in 1858, “have every train of thought brought before us while we are young, and may as well at once prepare for it.”

The on-campus crisis is not limited to disinviting speakers. It includes stifling speech itself. Wendy Kaminer, writing a few weeks ago in the Washington Post, described a recent panel she was on at Smith College that dealt with freedom of speech. At one point, Smith’s President, Kathleen McCartney, had observed, tongue in cheek, “We’re just wild and crazy, aren’t we?” When a transcript was prepared, Kaminer writes, the word “crazy” was replaced by the words “[ableist slur.”] When one her fellow panelists mentioned that the State Department had, at one time, banned the words “jihad,” “Islamist” and “caliphate”, the transcript substituted the words [“anti-Muslim/Islamophobic language.”] I know this sounds more like a script for Saturday Night Live than on-campus reality, but it’s all real. As was the predictable reality that when Ms. Kaminer turned to Huckleberry Finn and discussed Huck’s savior and the book’s leading (and, by far, most attractive) figure by name — perhaps you can recall it — she was challenged by other panelists for doing so and later accused in the Huffington Post with committing “an explicit act of racial violence.”

I don’t want to suggest that this is a problem limited to our country. Just as the First Amendment , which applies only to the government and thus not privately funded institutions, and what I think of as the spirit of the First Amendment, which should be taken account of in all universities, has not sufficed to prevent such speech destructive activities here, the same has been true in other nations that pride themselves on the protection of free expression. The Observer, in an article published in England just a month or so ago, reported on one English university in which (like here) the speech of a deputy ambassador of Israel had to be abandoned because of protests so noisy and threats of violence so credible that the safety of the speaker could not be guaranteed; of another that banned supposedly “racist” sombreros and native American dress; and of a third—one that you might have heard of called Oxford — where a debate on abortion was cancelled by College Censors (that’s their official name, by the way) on the ground that they wanted to protect “students’ emotional wellbeing” by “avoiding unnecessary distress, particularly for any residents who may have had an abortion.”

This sort of thinking makes this an extraordinary perilous moment with respect to free speech on campuses. It sometimes seems as if too many students, even if they are no more than a vocal minority, appear to want to see and hear only views they already hold. Worse still, they want to prevent others from hearing views with which they differ. On one level, this is all perfectly understandable. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, to whom I referred earlier, long ago observed in one of his most famous opinions that “[i]f you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” But natural as that response is, as Holmes later made clear, it is contrary to the core of the First Amendment that “free trade in ideas” be protected. Yet to avoid what the Oxford censors characterized as “unnecessary distress,” we have seen time and again on campuses in our country speech stifled, speech condemned, and speech punished.

I was struck, in that respect, to read of the dispute on the U.C. Irvine campus earlier this month when the Associated Students of the University of California banned national flags from the lobby and offices of student government on the ground that “[t]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism” and that they “not only serve as symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism, but also construct cultural mythologies and narratives that in turn charge nationalistic sentiments.” “Freedom of speech,” in certain spaces, the statement continued, can be interpreted as “hate speech.” The ban only lasted a few days before it was reversed, but what remains with me is not so much the degree of estrangement of the students involved from their country but that the students that supported it weren’t content with seeking to persuade others of their views but sought to impose their own by banning speech with they disagreed. It reminded me of the people who sought to criminalize the burning of the American flag. The First Amendment side of this issue is straightforward. Don’t ban the flag and don’t jail anyone who chooses to burn his or her own flag. That’s the way people who are devoted to freedom behave.

I do not mean to suggest that there are no hard cases about what should be permitted on a campus and what not. Consider, as you may be already, the ugly racist chants of students at the University of Oklahoma. It is difficult to condemn, on any sort of moral basis, the decision of David Boren, the President of that University, to expel the students. In universities, as elsewhere, racism is not a blemish; it is a scar on everyone — those vilified, those uttering the ugly slogans of hate, and everyone else.  And if I were the president of a private university, that is not subject to the First Amendment, my initial instinct (but not ultimate decision) might well have been to expel the students. But because state universities are treated as instrumentalities of the state, the First Amendment applies to them, and the expulsion of the students was in all likelihood unconstitutional. That, as Professor Geoffrey Stone has summarized, is because “the central meaning of the First Amendment is that we do not trust the Government to decide for us what we should be allowed to hear, read, see or know.”

The Ideological Left’s Drift Away from the First Amendment  Read More

0

FAN 51.5 (First Amendment News) Floyd Abrams on “the greatest threats to free speech in this country”

My First Amendment leads me to favor more speech, not less, on campus. And more speech, not less, in our elections. And more speech, not less, by corporations. And unions. And individuals. To me, then, the issue is not who benefits from reading the First Amendment broadly. It is that we all lose by reading it narrowly. Floyd Abrams, March 16, 2015

Floyd Abrams spoke at Temple University, Beasley School of Law, in Philadelphia yesterday to give the Arlin & Neysa Adams Lecture. In sometimes pointed, but always nuanced, remarks he singled out two great threats to free speech in modern America (see below).

In the course of his noontime remarks, Mr. Abrams took issue with

  • Professor Burt Neuborne (re “whether corporations are even in the First Amendment ballpark”), and with
  • Justice Stephen Breyer (re his defense of “collective speech” in his McCutcheon dissent), and with
  • Mr. Lincoln Caplan (re his belief that if corporations are protected by the First Amendment democracy will be imperiled).

Mr. Abrams’ remarks were prompted, in part, by a blog post by Professor Howard Wasserman, “Declaring Victory?PrawfsBlawg, Fe. 26, 2015 (re “There are no ‘major civil liberties battles’ to be fought or won with respect to the freedom of speech” — this in reference to the ACLU’s 2015 Workplan omitting any significant First Amendment agenda).

A few excerpts from the unpublished 4,300-word speech are set out below.

* * * * 

Greatest Threats to Free Speech 

Floyd Abrams speaking at Temple Law School

Floyd Abrams speaking at Temple Law School

1.  Suppression of Speech on College Campuses: Today, “pressures on freedom of expression, and all too often the actual suppression of free speech, come not from outside the academy but from within it.  And much of it seems to come from a minority of students, who strenuously — and, I think it fair to say, contemptuously — disapprove of the views of speakers whose view of the world is different than theirs and who seek to prevent those views from being heard.”

2.  The Ideological Left’s Attacks on First Amendment Freedoms: “[I]t is the ideological Left that is increasingly less supportive of the First Amendment – or, to put it more fairly, [less supportive of] more speech or speech-like activity being protected by the First Amendment. . . .”

* * * * 

What the First Amendment is About

Protecting Democracy by Protecting Speech“Scholars, as well, who are willing to support the suppression of speech in the name of democracy are themselves missing the whole point of the First Amendment. . . . I think the First Amendment protects democracy by protecting speech and that when we suppress speech we imperil democracy. Period. So for me, when the conservative entity known as Citizens United produced and sought to put a nearly hour-long documentary-style denunciation of Hillary Clinton on pay-for-view when she was (or seemed to be) the leading Democratic candidate for President, it is obvious that it should be protected by the First Amendment. And to him and four members of the Supreme Court, because the money that was spent preparing the documentary came, in part, from corporate grants, that speech can be deemed criminal.”

The First Amendment is about Liberty: Those who suppress speech in the name of democracy conflate “what the First Amendment protects with his other societal views as to how to create a more just society. There are lots of paths we might choose to walk to do the latter. We might raise taxes, enact stricter antitrust laws, limit the size of corporations – choose your own. But what the First Amendment forbids the government from doing is abridging speech. The great English philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it this way:

Everything is what it is; liberty is liberty, not equality or fairness or justice or culture or human happiness or a quiet conscience.

“To which I add: the First Amendment is about liberty. We may and should take all appropriate steps to effectuate and protect other human values. But let’s not overcome or rewrite the First Amendment in doing so.”

0

FAN 51.3 (First Amendment News) 8th Circuit Panel Strikes Down Missouri’s “House of Worship Protection Act”

The Case: Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, Inc. et al v. Joyce (8th Cir., March 9, 2015)

Judge Diana E. Murphy

Judge Diana E. Murphy

The Facts: “This action was brought by [the ACLU of Missouri on behalf of] two Missouri non profit organizations and two individuals who regularly gather outside Catholic churches to address sexual abuse by priests and other matters of public concern. Four parties, appellants here, have raised a facial First Amendment freedom of speech challenge to Missouri’s “House of Worship Protection Act.” The Act prohibits intentionally disturbing a ‘house of worship by using profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior . . . either within the house of worship or so near it as to disturb the order and solemnity of the worship services.’”

The Ruling: (Opinion per Judge Diana E. Murphy joined by Judges James B. Loken and Roger Leland Wollman)

  1. “The Act’s prohibition on profane discourse and rude or indecent behavior is content based.”
  2. “[T]he Worship Protection Act bans “profane” language and ‘rude or indecent behavior’ without defining these adjectives or what is meant by ‘unreasonably’ disrupting a house of worship.”
  3. “The Act bans the use of ‘profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior,’ meaning that a protester holding a sign considered profane or indecent outside a church is subject to penalties because of the content of her speech. Enforcement authorities must decide not only whether the speaker intentionally and unreasonably disturbs a house of worship, but also whether she uses profane or rude expression in doing so. Such distinctions based on the nature of the message conveyed make the Act content based.”
  4. “This Missouri statute cannot survive strict scrutiny since [the law] draws content based distinctions that are not necessary to achieve the state’s asserted interest in protecting the free exercise of religion.Since the Missouri House of Worship Protection Act violates the First Amendment, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings . . . .”

As amici point out, critical portrayals of Muhammad outside a mosque or of the Pope outside a Catholic Church might well be considered profane or indecent by their audiences. Others may find language using the name of holy figures as swear words not only disrespectful, but profane as well. Similar expressions in the near vicinity of a house of worship have the potential to disturb or disquiet those present for worship. The meaning of “profane,” or irreverence to the sacred, is not a well defined legislative term familiar to people of different faiths. Any silent demonstration outside a house of worship would likely be able to create a disturbance only by the content of its message. Even expression that may be perceived as offensive, rude, or disruptive remains protected by the First Amendment.

Amici for AppellantsThomas More Society and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression

[ht: Steve Wermiel]

6

FAN 51.1 (First Amendment News) Oklahoma ACLU Issues Separate Statements on Racist Chants

March 9, 2015 (ACLU of Oklahoma Press Release)

OKLAHOMA CITY – Following this weekend’s news of members of the University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity chanting about lynching African Americans, and the investigative and disciplinary actions in progress, the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma as released the following statements:

The following is attributable to Ryan Kiesel, ACLU of Oklahoma Executive Director:

Sixty-six years ago and after two trips to the United States Supreme Court, Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher became the first African American student to be admitted to the University of Oklahoma College of Law. Even after her admission, she was still segregated from her white peers. With a legal team that included Thurgood Marshall, her case played a critical role in the end of the separate but equal doctrine. As monumental as that victory may have been, the video showing SAE fraternity members at the University of Oklahoma singing a disgraceful racist chant serves as a stark reminder that racism is very much a present reality.

We offer our sincere appreciation to the students, faculty and staff who have joined together in solidarity against hate and racism. They remind us that the spark in Ada Lois Sipuel Fisher still persists in the minds of those who benefitted from her work. Let history say the same of us. At the very least, this awful incident must prompt a robust conversation and a review of every aspect of campus life so that we can combat persistent discrimination and realize racial justice. And as the fates of the students at the center of this controversy unfold, we encourage the administration to demonstrate their commitment to due process; for it is often in protecting the rights of the very worst, we are able to demonstrate our fullest commitment to justice. (emphasis added)

The following is attributable to Brady Henderson, ACLU of Oklahoma Legal Director:

We join with OU President David Boren, as well as the majority of OU students, faculty, and alumni, and with an overwhelming number of Oklahomans in their disgust at SAE’s conduct this past Saturday night. While many Americans paused this weekend to reflect on the 50th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s famous march in Selma, Alabama, these students marked the occasion by mocking one of the saddest chapters of American history, the mob-fueled, government-sanctioned murder of African Americans. These students remind us that despite King’s victory in Selma, and other battles won by countless citizens with the courage to face hate head-on, racism is not dead or even dormant in modern America, even on our college campuses.

We applaud President Boren’s aggressive response to the SAE’s actions, and we encourage the OU administration to be equally aggressive in ensuring that the due process rights of students remain protected throughout any disciplinary processes against Fraternity members. The deep-rooted problem of racism will not be solved by discipline alone, but by open and honest dialogue and an accounting of where we are and where we need to go not just in our universities, but in the communities university students will one day lead.(emphasis added)

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 51 (First Amendment News) Journalists, Scholars & Others Pay Tribute to Anthony Lewis

Anthony Lewis . . . created a new approach to legal journalism. He combined sophisticated legal analysis with an unparalleled ability to write in plain, lucid English, translating the Court’s decisions, explaining their implications, and assessing their significance for a broad readership. David Cole (May 9, 2013)

Tony Lewis (credit: NYT)

Tony Lewis (credit: NYT)

Anthony Lewis (1927-2013) — reporter, columnist, educator, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, and scholar. He was all of those things and more. I grew up on Tony Lewis (he was born Joseph Anthony Lewis). He was right there, in the New York Times, which in those days you couldn’t get on the Internet – there was none. If you were outside New York you were lucky to find a hard copy at a good hotel or news- stand.  A Lewis column was a staple of one’s diet for those who followed the Court and related matters. And what a corpus of work he set his name to — some 5,600 some articles and columns and five books. That is reason enough to single out the Lewis byline.

→ See Adam Liptak, “Anthony Lewis, Supreme Court Reporter Who Brought Law to Life, Dies at 85,” NYT, March 25, 2013

Happily, the Missouri Law Review recently paid tribute to Tony Lewis in a symposium issue with 13 contributors, several of whom once worked with him and were also close friends of his. (Note: The links below may not open in Safari but should open in Firefox and Chrome.)

  1. Foreword: The Art, Craft, and Future of Legal Journalism: A Tribute to Anthony Lewis, by Richard Ruben
  2. Keynote: Anthony Lewis and the First Amendment, by Adam Liptak

Articles

  1. Anthony Lewis: What He Learned at Harvard Law School, by Lincoln Caplan
  2. Anthony Lewis: Pioneer in the Court’s Pressroom, by Lyle Denniston
  3. The Rigorous Romantic: Anthony Lewis on the Supreme Court Beat, by Linda Greenhouse
  4. Press Freedom and Coverage in the U.S. and Kosovo: A Series of Comparisons and Recommendations, by Ben Holden
  5. A Tiger with No Teeth: The Case for Fee Shifting in State Public Records Law, by Heath Hooper & Charles N. Davis
  6. Anthony Lewis, by Dahlia Lithwick
  7. Legal Journalism Today: Change or Die, by Howard Mintz
  8. Institutionalizing Press Relations at the Supreme Court: The Origins of the Public Information Office, by Jonathan Peters
  9. Setting the Docket: News Media Coverage of Our Courts – Past, Present and an Uncertain Future, by Gene Policinski
  10. As Today’s Tony Lewises Disappear, Courts Fill Void, by David A. Sellers
  11. Making Judge-Speak Clear Amidst the Babel of Lawspeakers, by Michael A. Wolff

Tony Lewis’ Fantasy

You lead me to tell you my fantasy. A happy fantasy. [It is this:] our next President does the equivalent of what Jefferson did in his first inaugural when he was so hated by the Federalists and began his inaugural speech by saying, “We are all Republicans – we are all Federalists.” The next president sets out to say two things. One, there’s nobody unpatriotic here. We’re all Americans together. And two, this administration is going to be an administration of law; where law has been rolled back, we’re going to bring it to the fore again. This country is a government of laws, not men. That’s my fantasy. Will it happen? I doubt it. But I sure think it ought to. (Sept. 12, 2006 Interview, Walter Lippmann House, Cambridge, Mass.)

Go here for a C-SPAN interview I did with Tony in connection with his book Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment (2001).

Media Groups Challenge Claim for Profits in the Defamation Case

Jesse Ventura

Jesse Ventura

The case is Ventura v. Kyle, which is presently before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The matter involves a defamation lawsuit brought in federal court by Jesse Ventura (former governor of Minnesota and Navy veteran) against HarperCollins concerning its publication of the book American Sniper by Chris Kyle. Last summer, a jury awarded Ventura $1.8 million from the Kyle estate. The case is now on appeal.

Yesterday Floyd Abrams joined by Susan Buckley and Merriam Mikhail filed an amicus brief on behalf of 33 media companies and organizations contesting the award. In it, the trio of lawyers advanced two main arguments:

  1. The Common Law Does Not Recognize and the Constitution Does Not Permit an Award of a Book’s Profits as a Remedy for Defamation, and
  2. The Award of Profits from American Sniper is Tantamount to an Award of Punitive Damages, Damages that Are Not Permitted Against the Estate

“[T]he law of libel,” they maintain, has “been clear that while damages could be awarded to victims of libel, the awards would be limited to the recovery of money for the injuries said to have been sustained by plaintiffs and not for amounts claimed to have been received by defendants. That proposition has rarely been questioned until this case. Indeed, we know of only one case, decided more than 65 years ago, that is directly on point: Hart v. E.P. Dutton & Co., 93 N.Y.S.2d 871 (Sup. Ct. 1949), aff’d, 98 N.Y.S.2d 773 (App. Div. 1950), appeal denied, 99 N.Y.S.2d 1014 (App. Div. 1950). Rooted in constitutional concerns and the common law relating to libel, the Hart decision holds that a claim for profits may not be asserted in the defamation context. We are aware of no case before or after Hart to the contrary.”

The briefs concludes: “Where, as here, there was no showing of evil intent sufficient to satisfy [Minnesota’s punitive damages law], where, as here, an award of profits can serve no deterrent or punitive purpose, and where, as here, the First Amendment’s abhorrence of exorbitant damage awards untethered to a plaintiff’s true injury is clearly in play, this Court should not be the first to sanction an unprecedented award of a book’s profits.”

 As noted in their amicus brief, the issue of an award of profits in defamation cases is addressed in Dan Dobbs, Law of Remedies: Damages – Equity – Restitution (2d ed.) (“One reason to deny the restitution claim is the threat it presents to free speech. Another is the difficulty of apportioning the publisher’s profit between his own effort and investment and the defamatory material.”)

Geoffrey Stone Weighs in on Oklahoma Expulsion Controversy  Read More

0

FAN 50.1 (First Amendment News) Lanham Act Violates the First Amendment Says ACLU

On March 5, 2015,  the national ACLU and its Virginia Chapter filed an amicus brief in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) as violative of the First Amendment. The case is Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, et al (# 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD).

aclu_logoHere is a description of the case: “In the wake of the [Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s] decision last year to cancel a number of federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins team name, on the grounds that the marks were disparaging to Native Americans at the time they were issued in violation of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, Pro-Football, Inc. (“PFI”)—the corporation that owns the Redskins franchise—sought de novo review of that decision in the United States District Court. Filing a district court action rather than appealing allowed PFI to raise claims that were beyond the powers of the TTAB to address—chiefly that section 2(a) is unconstitutional.” Craig C. Reilly is the lead counsel for the Petitioners.

Rebecca K. Glenberg filed the ACLU’s amicus brief. In that brief, the ACLU advanced four arguments:

  1. The Lanham Act regulates private expression protected by the First Amendment
  2. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act impermissibly mandates viewpoint discrimination
  3. Section 2(a) burdens private speech by placing an unconstitutional condition on the receipt of valuable government benefits, and
  4. Section 2(a) is unconstitutionally vague and over broad.

Here is an excerpt from the ACLU brief:

Few principles in constitutional law are as settled as the First Amendment’s prohibition on government regulation of private speech based on viewpoint. The courts have never blessed a government program that permits government actors to determine the acceptability of a speaker’s viewpoint and then condition benefits based on that determination. The First Amendment harms are magnified when such regulation of speech rests on vague and subjective terms that provide no meaningful notice to speakers as to which speech the government will find acceptable, and thereby risk—and in this case, ensure—inconsistent and discriminatory application.These evergreen principles hold no less true simply because they arise in the context of trademark law. Yet Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), not only condones but mandates viewpoint-based discrimination in the provision of trademark registration. Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of any trademark interpreted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to be immoral, scandalous, or disparaging to any persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. It is indisputable that registration of a mark provides substantial benefits to a trademark holder; it is also true that many trademarks involve expressive speech and association. Therefore, by authorizing the government to deny registration of certain marks because of a viewpoint-based determination about the character of expressive speech, Section 2(a) violates the First Amendment.

Lee Rowland, Esha Bhandari (both of the national ACLU) and Brett Max Kaufman (Technology Law & Policy Clinic, New York University School of Law) were also on the ACLU amicus brief.

[HT: Anthony Romero]

UPDATE: See commentary here  by Professor Eugene Volokh.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
5

FAN 50 (First Amendment News) ACLU’s 2015 Workplan & the First Amendment — Anthony Romero Responds

In my last FAN post I noted that the ACLU’s 2015 Workplan (an eight-page informational and fundraising document) had only a passing reference to the First Amendment — a mainstay of the ACLU since its founding. There was no highlighted listing of free speech rights in the categories of activities to be protected. Furthermore, a February 24, 2015 two-page ACLU fundraising letter concerning the 2015 Workplan contained no reference whatsoever re protecting free speech rights. In light of this, I invited the ACLU’s Executive Director Anthony Romero “to explain why protecting our First Amendment freedoms did not receive greater and more expanded attention in the national ACLU’s 2015 Workplan.”

Mr. Romero kindly accepted my invitation and his response of February 27th is set out below. As you can see, protecting free speech freedoms continues to be an important part of the ACLU’s mission even if its fundraising letters sometimes downplay or overlook all the fine First Amendment work the group does.

Burt Neuborne

Burt Neuborne

Unfortunately, Mr. Romero declined to do a Q&A with me, for now at least — but my invitation remains open.

Meanwhile, I am pleased to say that I am scheduled to do a Q&A with Professor Burt Neuborne, who served as the National Legal Director of the ACLU from 1981-86 and who has just published a book entitled Madison’s Music: On Reading the First Amendment.

Stay tuned.  

______________________________________________________________________________

Dear Mr. Collins:

Anthony Romero

Anthony Romero

I appreciate your concern that the 2015 Workplan did not contain a section devoted to the ACLU’s efforts defending First Amendment freedom of expression, but I want to assure you that this remains a robust, bedrock area of our work to which we remain fully committed. As we note in the Workplan, the issues we chose to focus on in that document are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the ACLU’s work. The Workplan is our annual opportunity to highlight certain broad issue areas and our funding goals to continue to move forward in those particular areas of our work.

Moreover, the issue areas outlined in our Workplan tend to be those where there exists a national trend – such as a coordinated effort to erode rights (e.g., reproductive rights, voter ID laws) or an opportunity for new gains (e.g., freedom to marry, mass incarceration) – or those where recent events warrant a highly coordinated, national effort on the part of the ACLU (e.g., government surveillance, privacy & technology, police misconduct).

First Amendment issues come up throughout our work and play an important role in many of our cases. At the national office, this work comes under the umbrella of our Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project which is dedicated to protecting and expanding the First Amendment freedoms of expression, association, and inquiry; expanding the right to privacy and increasing the control that individuals have over their personal information; and ensuring that civil liberties are enhanced rather than compromised by new advances in science and technology. The project is currently working on a variety of issues, including political protest, freedom of expression online, privacy of electronic information, journalists’ rights, scientific freedom, and openness in the courts.

The project routinely briefs critical First Amendment issues in the Supreme Court and the federal Courts of Appeal. In this past year, we have authored and submitted three friend-of-the-court briefs to the Supreme Court arguing for maximal free speech protections, including: a brief arguing that a political candidate had the right to challenge a law criminalizing “political lies,” (brief available here); a brief arguing that the government must meet a high bar in order for a jury to convict an individual for a “true threat,” whether online or off (brief available here); and, just last week, a brief supporting the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ challenge to Texas’ censorship of “offensive” messages on specialty license plates (brief available here). The ACLU is and has always been fully committed to protecting free speech, even when that speech may be offensive or controversial to many.

[RC: The ACLU also recently filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, the judicial election campaign solicitation case.]

The project also maintains a strategic litigation docket focused on new First Amendment issues of national concern. For example, in the last few months we filed a First Amendment claim on behalf of media clients challenging Ohio’s censorship of execution access (case page here), as well as a groundbreaking challenge to Arizona’s recent anti-nudity law – one of numerous such state bills passed in the name of prohibiting “revenge porn,” but drafted so broadly as to function as a broad ban on sharing lawful nudity; that case page is available here. Of course, we also engage in diverse non-litigation advocacy and public education on free expression issues; you can read about our recent First Amendment-related issue advocacy at this link.

aclu_logoFurthermore, our First Amendment freedom of expression work is somewhat unique in that a large share of it involves responding to threats or incidents that occur on the local level and not generally as part of a broader, coordinated threat to freedom of expression. For as long as the ACLU has existed, the vast majority of First Amendment cases have been litigated by our affiliates. At the state level, First Amendment litigation tends to comprise a large portion – in many states perhaps even a majority – of ACLU affiliates’ litigation dockets.

So while free speech work remains a core, priority area of focus for the ACLU, much of the on-the-ground work of preventing or challenging restrictions of freedom of expression is carried out by ACLU attorneys and lobbyists in our local affiliate offices—often, with assistance and resources from the national office. A salient example of this is the ACLU of Missouri’s recent work to protect the rights of protesters in Ferguson; the national office assisted when a federal agency (the FAA) entered a no-fly zone which we believed to improperly limit media access. I’ve also included (at the bottom of this email) some links to our news releases on a selection of recent, ACLU First Amendment cases brought by both the national office and state affiliates, for your reference.

Mr. Collins, I hope this reply provides some clarity with respect to your concerns. Please rest assured that the ACLU remains committed to staunchly defending freedom of speech and expression.

All my best,

Anthony Romero

ACLU work on freedom of protest in Ferguson (highlights) Read More