Category: First Amendment

0

New Jersey Crosses the Finish Line to Marriage Equality – Maybe

Same-sex marriage became legal in New Jersey at 12:01 am on Monday, October 21. Wedding ceremonies are everywhere. The process may not be over, however; there are tactical decisions yet to be made as to how best to solidify and clarify the win.

It was a roundabout victory, achieved via a Superior Court decision last month, in which Judge Mary Jacobson held that civil union did not satisfy a state constitutional mandate of equal protection established in Lewis v. Harris (N.J. 2006). There followed, on Friday, October 18, a unanimous state Supreme Court ruling denying a motion for stay of Judge Jacobson’s order. So it’s legal for same-sex couples to marry here, but there is no a ruling on the merits by the state Supreme Court. That’s the problem. Read More

0

IRBs and Mission Creep?

I’ve written several times in the past about the intersection of IRBs and the legal academy. (Blogging; Caselaw Research; Zach Schrag interview) Consider this an update in that series.

My university (Temple) has an interesting set of new IRB guidelines. Essentially, Temple’s IRB (for all subjects) is now requiring department head sign-off for all protocols:

“In addition to the PI, every individual listed on the approval route on an IRB submission is required to approve the submission before it can reach the IRB for review. The electronic approval takes the place of a hard copy signature. Department Heads and all research personnel are required to approval Initial Submissions. Individuals can also be manually added to the approval route. Everyone listed on the approval route must view and approve the submission in order for it to reach the IRB. Please see the instructions for Providing Approval in eRA on the IRB’s website.”

When I inquired as to why this regulation was required, I was told that department heads knew the financial health & needs of the institution, and would therefore be able to tell if particular projects’ execution was financially possible.  Because department heads are best positioned to know if research is too expensive (and consequently that human subjects wouldn’t be cared for), IRB review will be denied if they refuse to sign the application. The IRB acknowledged that the regulation was not required by HHS regulations or the common rule, but was essentially a way to improve the quality of the University’s research.

To me this is a deeply problematic requirement. Academic freedom is a slogan which almost always signifies rent seeking. But here, there are significant risks that the IRB could be used as a way to cloak gamesmanship inside of departments.  Imagine that you are on the outs from your boss. She or he can now simply refuse you the right to do research by stating that the department can’t support it.  The IRB enforces that refusal, with its full array of punitive sanctions. What avenue of relief could you possibly have, apart from an incredibly cumbersome university grievance process, or a First Amendment lawsuit against the University?

Ultimately I dropped my objections to the regulation and got sign-off, in large part because I trust the powers that be.  Also, who wants to poke the bear?  But I thought I’d throw it out there to see whether any of you have seen similar regulations, and whether (or not) they’ve been challenged successfully.

0

Ex Officio: Select Conference Notes from the Burger Court Justices’ views on Campaign Finance Laws

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is one of the most important cases to be decided this term. The case involves a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and political committees.  This issue was left untouched in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010). And as with so many of the cases in campaign finance area, the McCutcheon case brings the Court and bar back to the seminal ruling in this area — Buckley v. Valeo (1976).  The eight-member Burger Court (Justice John Paul Stevens did not participate) produced a per curiam opinion along with five separate opinions (totaling 294 pages) in which the Justices dissented and concurred in part.

Thanks to the fact that several of the Justices who participated in Buckley kept conference notes that have now become public, we have somewhat of an idea of their ex officio views about the matter. The case involved a First Amendment challenge to provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its 1974 amendments.

Select portions of the Justices’ conference notes from FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee (1985) are likewise available for public scrutiny.  That case also involved a First Amendment challenge, this time to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act.  Here again, the Court was badly divided.

In what follows I offer a selection of snippets from the Justices’ conference notes from the two cases. These quotes may well be of some interest to those who are following the McCutcheon case. The conference notes quoted below are from The Supreme Court in Conference (1940-1985): The Private Discussions Behind Nearly 300 Supreme Court Decisions (Oxford University Press, 2001), which was edited by Professor Del Dickson of the University of San Diego Department of Political Science and International Relations.

* * * * *

The following are selected excerpts from the Justices’ conference notes in Buckley v. Valeo, which was argued on November 10, 1975: 

Chief Justice Warren Burger: “I have serious doubts about whether these limits [$1,000 individual limits on spending “relative to a clearly identified candidate”] are constitutional. . . This is pure speech.”

“The disclosure provisions are the heart of the whole thing for me.  I think these provisions are constitutional and highly desirable.

Justice William Brennan: “I would sustain the contribution limits. . . . I won’t vote on expenditure limitations today.”

Justice Potter Stewart: “On contributions, I was predisposed to say that the statute is constitutional at first, but the more I get into this the more doubtful I became.”

“The expenditure limitations are wholly unconstitutional.”

“I see no First Amendment problems in political committees.”

Read More

2

Pressing a point

 

Prentice Women’s Hospital is a landmark for me.  Owned by Northwestern University, it stands directly across from the Northwestern Law complex, meaning that I passed it virtually every day as a law student and more recently as a VAP here at the school.  So I’m keenly interested in the University’s plan to tear down the concrete, clover leaf-shaped structure and replace it with a state-of-the-art research facility.  The debate over its fate also illustrated a trend towards advocacy in the mainstream media that raises some interesting legal questions.

Prentice_Women's_Hospital_Chicago

The building is one of the foremost examples of late-Modernist architecture in the city, and activists pressed the Chicago Commission on Landmarks to give the building landmark status, thus preserving it from demolition. When, in the midst of the preservation effort last year, local alderman Brendan Reilly said he was “open to suggestions” to save the building, New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman stepped in.  Kimmelman did not merely detail the architectural relevance of the building or express his support for preservation.  Instead, he asked Chicago architecture’s It Girl, Jeanne Gang, whether it would be possible to build a research tower on top of the existing structure.  She responded with drawings of a 31-story skyscraper perched on top of the clover leaf.  Kimmelman wrote about Gang’s idea, running pictures of her concept in the paper.  Again, though, he didn’t stop there.  He contacted a field officer for the Chicago office of the National  Trust for Historic Preservation, and asked whether her organization would support the idea.  He contacted Northwestern to ask whether the university might sign on.  And he called the president of an international structural engineering firm to get feedback on the structural and financial feasibility of the plan.  Somewhere along the way, Kimmelman stopped looking like a reporter, or even a critic, and started looking more like one of the activists trying to save the building.

Putting aside the admirable intentions that obviously drove Kimmelman, his efforts illustrate the increasingly porous boundary between reporting and advocacy, even in the mainstream media.  Of course, partisanship and muckraking in journalism are not new.  But as journalism migrates onto our phones and screens alongside Instagram and Facebook, and as “dying” newspapers and network news broadcasts venture beyond traditional reporting techniques to chase eyeballs and engagement, it grows increasingly difficult to categorize what exactly we are consuming when we consume the news.  Why do these questions, obvious fodder for media ethicists, matter to lawyers?  For two reasons, one specific and one general.

Read More

0

Glass Houses

Google Glass has been a mere gleam in the eye of tech savants for the past several months, but the company began distributing the wearable internet device to a hand-picked group of “Explorers” in June.  A fascinating pair of articles from the New York Times Bits columnist, Nick Bilton, recently highlighted the tensions between speech and privacy that are likely to play out as the device is integrated into everyday use.  The articles compared Glass to Kodak cameras, which were controversial when introduced in the late 1800s but ultimately accepted after Americans figured out how and when the cameras should be used.  It’s not clear, however, that the Glass experience will duplicate the Kodak pattern.  Kodaks came on the market when tort law could respond nimbly to camera invasions of privacy, while Glass is debuting in a world where tort law is increasingly subject to constitutional constraints.

Bilton teed up the Glass privacy issue nicely in May, when he described his visit to the Google I/O developers’ conference.  There, hundreds of attendees were sporting the eyeglass-mounted computers, which can take a snapshot or video with a wink of the wearer’s eye.  Bilton — a self-professed tech nerd — reported being rattled by the swarms of Glass wearers; after trying to “duck [his] head and move out of the way” of the wearable cameras, he retreated to the men’s room, only to find the urinals on either side of him occupied by Glass wearers.  “My world,” he wrote, “came screeching to a halt.”  In an article appearing a week later, however, Bilton appeared to have calmed down.  He had interviewed CUNY journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, who predicted that unwilling stars in Glass pictures and videos would eventually realize that being recorded is simply a hazard of appearing in public.  Jarvis likened the anti-Glass complaints to the furor that erupted when Kodak cameras were introduced in the 1890s.  So-called Kodak fiends, who trained their lenses primarily on uncooperative females, initially encountered threats and violence.  Ultimately, Jarvis said, amateur photographers began to behave better and society accepted cameras as a new feature of daily life.

But Bilton and Jarvis may have overlooked a crucial difference between the legal environment when pocket cameras were introduced and the legal environment today.  Tort law was instrumental in developing norms about acceptable camera use in the early Twentieth Century.  The Kodak fiends did not become more respectful overnight, and Americans did not become easily inured to having their pictures taken by strangers.  Instead, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis protested the abuse of cameras in what has been called the most famous law review article ever published, The Right to Privacy.  That piece advocated the creation of a new tort that would give victims of stealth photography (and other dubious news practices) a legal remedy against their aggressors.  State courts began recognizing privacy torts in 1905 and by 1960 they were a standard part of the tort toolbox.  In short, tort law established a background scheme of legal liability for the abuse of camera technology, and social norms about acceptable camera use followed.

Read More

1

Divisible Defamation

When Congress passed the SPEECH Act two years ago, its primary goal was to protect speakers from hefty defamation verdicts rendered by libel havens, countries whose laws are less speech-protective than those in the United States.  The statute essentially prohibits U.S. courts from enforcing foreign defamation judgments unless the applicable law provides speech protections comparable to those in the U.S., or the same judgment would have resulted under U.S. law.  One recent case suggests that the SPEECH Act may inadvertently be splitting the defamation atom in two, allowing plaintiffs to rehabilitate their reputations while simultaneously shielding defendants from monetary loss.  This phenomenon may sound familiar to Conflicts aficionados, as it seems to replicate the creation of so-called divisible divorce in the 1940s.

A case now on appeal in the Fifth Circuit, involving New Orleans corruption, Canadian libel law, and the same-sex proprietors of a Nova Scotia fishing resort, illustrates what may become the norm when electronic speech spans national borders.

In a 2010 story about alleged political corruption in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that a parish official co-owned a vacation resort in Nova Scotia.  The paper later retracted the statement and stopped hosting a blog that had also discussed the connection between the disgraced official and the Nova Scotia couple that ran the resort.  The blogger found a new host and continued to post allegations that the couple was laundering proceeds of the New Orleans corruption, along with embarrassing photoshopped images of the two and several homophobic slurs against them.  The couple sued the blogger in Canada for defamation (and several other torts).  The blogger did not appear, the allegations in the complaint were taken as true, and the court awarded the men $425,000.  The men sought to enforce the judgment in Mississippi state court, the case was removed to the local federal district court, and the court refused to enforce the judgment, citing the SPEECH Act.  The federal court concluded that its Canadian counterpart did not specifically find that the blogger’s statements were false, as required under U.S. law.  Therefore, the Canadian court provided less speech protection than a U.S. court would have, and the judgment could not be enforced.

The result may have been an unintentionally ideal compromise.  Together the U.S. and Canadian courts essentially credited the moral victory to the ostensibly defamed lodge owners and the financial victory to the blogger.  While this might not be a palatable outcome for most torts, there is some research suggesting that defamation plaintiffs, in particular, are as concerned with public acknowledgment that they have been falsely impugned as they are with collecting money.  In fact, the Nova Scotia plaintiffs were reported to have said “this was never about the money,” echoing Frederick Pollock’s famous observation that “the law went wrong from the start in making the damage and not the insult the cause of the action.”  Further, while speech has grown increasingly global, libel law remains stubbornly divided between defendant-protective doctrines in the U.S. and more plaintiff-friendly doctrines elsewhere.  So it may be time for a mechanism that strikes something of a balance.

In fact, it is not uncommon that recognition and enforcement principles are deployed to accommodate cultural or generational divides reflected in conflicting laws.  In the 1940s, the Supreme Court held in a series of cases that states had to recognize quickie divorces awarded by sister states that had welcomed fleeing spouses, even when the absent spouse was clinging to the marriage.  Several years later, however, the Court held that while sister states had to honor adjudications of marital status, they did not have to honor out-of-state judgments purporting to dictate the financial status of the absent spouse.  Thus was born the “divisible divorce,” with one state handling the status adjudication and another handling the financial adjudication.  Perhaps the SPEECH Act has established divisible defamation for the age of global speech.

20

Citizens United, Graffiti, and the Web

We need more outlets to challenge the way things run. Challenging corporations is difficult, necessary, and proper. Someone in San Diego tried to do that. He is losing his case. It turns out that if you scribble anti-bank messages, you could face 13 years in jail. The medium: washable children’s chalk, not spray paint, on the sidewalk in front of banks. The bank: Bank of America. Now, you might think the First Amendment would be an issue here; it’s not. According the news report, “a judge had opted to prevent the defendant’s attorney from ‘mentioning the First Amendment, free speech, free expression, public forum, expressive conduct, or political speech during the trial,’ and the defendant must now stand trial on 13 counts of vandalism.” The defendant was saying other banks were better banks. Bank of America did not like it, claimed it cost $6,000 to clean up the chalk, and apparently used its influence to have the city gang unit investigate and hand the case to the attorney’s office. Given that this defendant may not be allowed to engage in this speech, because of anti-graffiti and, my bet, property laws, all that may be left is the Web. I think offline mediums matter and should be protected. The Web is an alternative, not a substitute. But even on the Web a protester will have problems.

As I argue in Speech, Citizenry, and the Market: A Corporate Public Figure Doctrine, corporate power to speak has gone up. Corporate power to limit speech has not. A corporate public figure doctrine would allow someone to use a corporation’s logo and name to challenge to corporation on public issues. A corporation’s word mark is its given name; its logo, its face. Just as we would not limit the ability to question and identify human public figures for speech, we should not do so for corporate public figures. A foundational commitment of free speech law, perhaps the foundational commitment, is that public figures don’t and can’t own their reputations. Yet, through trademark and commercial speech doctrines corporations have powerful control over their reputations. If corporations are people for free speech purposes, as a constitutional matter, their control over their reputations can be no greater than the control other public figures have. Corporations cannot have it both ways. Corporations want and receive many of the legal rights natural persons receive. They should be subject to the same limits as other powerful, public figures.

HT: Fred von Lohmann for noting the story on Facebook.

PS. I am not saying corporations should be challenged, because they are corporations. That is silly. In that sense, I would challenge those who challenge, but that’s me.

0

Volume 60, Issue 5 (June 2013)

Volume 60, Issue 5 (June 2013)
Articles

First Amendment Constraints on Copyright After Golan v. Holder Neil Weinstock Netanel 1082
Intraracial Diversity Devon W. Carbado 1130
When to Overthrow your Government: The Right to Resist in the World’s Constitutions Ginsburg et al. 1184
Interbank Discipline Kathryn Judge 1262

Comments

A Proposal for U.S. Implementation of the Vienna Convention’s Consular Notification Requirement Nicole M. Howell 1324

Purdy on Civil Disobedience

The “Moral Monday” protests at the North Carolina legislature have included religious leaders, teachers, and many concerned citizens. Law professor Jedediah Purdy reflects on his participation here:

Because North Carolina refused the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, I ended up in handcuffs in the Wake County Detention Center. That was my trigger, anyway. Statistically, next year more than two thousand people in the state will die who would have lived if North Carolina had accepted federal money to give health insurance to low-income families. (That’s our share of an estimated 19,000 preventable deaths nationwide in the 14 states that have rejected the expansion.) Because the state legislature was doing that in my name, I decided I needed to stand in front of it, at least until they took me away.

I can’t add much to Purdy’s article, except to say: what are own personal “red lines,” or government/corporate activities (and let’s not kid ourselves—that merger is the core, fused nature of power these days) that seem too egregiously wrong to let pass without personally protesting them? And given how frequently both right and left lament the “brokenness” of government, is Bernard Harcourt right to suggest that political disobedience is gradually displacing civil disobedience?

2

LSA Retro-Recap Days 2-3: Leisure, Law & Econ, and Liberalism

Day 2 of the conference saw a spirited panel (featuring Scott Shaprio, Ken Ehrenberg, Michael Guidice, and Brian Tamanaha) about the (ir)reconcilability of legal anthropology and sociolegal studies with analytic jurisprudence. Much of the discussion (not to mention the spirit) here concerned the appropriate definition of a “concept.” If that kind of question does not induce somnolence for you, then read on! Read More