ABSTRACT This paper will argue that non-institutional media such as bloggers should be accorded the same First Amendment protection as institutional media under libel laws. Supreme Court precedent supports making no distinction between the institutional and non-institutional media. The status of the plaintiff is relevant in libel actions, not the status of the defendant. Moreover, when bloggers disseminate information that is a matter of public concern, they are functioning as journalists. Many federal courts have adopted this functional approach when determining whether bloggers can be protected by shield laws. This paper argues that the same standard should apply to libel laws.
ABSTRACT Every year thousands of people challenge the contents of libraries and school curriculum. The exact number of these complaints is impossible to measure and most are likely verbal in nature and handled informally. Some, however, explode into public view. This article explores two battles in New Jersey over Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel. In a dispute that began via email, emerged publicly through several local board of education hearings, spread to a neighboring school, and then traveled to the courts, the Fun Home dispute illustrates the conflict at play in the joints between free speech, parental rights, and public authority.
While all colleges and universities are challenged by questions about free expression in the current environment, private higher educational institutions do so without the constitutional mandate of their public counterparts. Some private colleges and universities have sought to independently affirm their commitment to free speech through statements of principle or purpose. This study explores those statements in an attempt to understand if – and how – free expression is presented as worth protecting in private higher education.
ABSTRACT We explore student attitudes toward freedom of speech on campus using a think-aloud method, in which students are exposed to source material on a subject and “think aloud” as they work through the controversies. We gain an in-depth picture of how students understand and make judgments about who should and should not be allowed to speak on campus. Utilizing the think-aloud method to examine various cases of invited speakers on campus, we learn that students have difficult times differentiating legal and political reasons for preventing certain campus speakers. We also find that students tend to be more restrictive than a civil libertarian might like, albeit in (usually) internally consistent and sympathetic ways. We conclude by suggesting interventions that could help students better understand the way First Amendment rights are typically adjudicated and balanced against other lofty goals.
This essay argues that recent controversies over conservative speakers on college campuses are an opaque vehicle for White supremacy. Revisiting Herbert Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance through the lens of Critical Race Theory, this essay sketches the features of repressive victimhood: the advancement of categorical minority status orchestrated to shield white people from charges of intolerance while reframing counterspeech as commensurate with overt bigotry.
