What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Volume
2020

Print
Comment
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Climate Change Disclosures After NIFLA
Daniel Abrams
BA 2012, University of Michigan; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

Climate change represents one of the defining global problems of the twenty-first century. The effects of warming have led to mass displacement, more extreme weather events, and degradation of natural habitat.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Free Speech Overrides
Frederick Schauer
Frederick Schauer is David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia.

This Essay was prepared for the University of Chicago Law School’s Conference on What’s the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment, held on October 24, 2019.

The notion of an “absolute” First Amendment has been around for generations. Talk of an absolute First Amendment, however, is just that—talk.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Must Free Speech be Harmful?
Leslie Kendrick
Vice Dean and David H. Ibbeken ‘71 Research Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.

I would like to thank Amy Adler, Will Baude, Danielle Citron, Genevieve Lakier, Fred Schauer, Elizabeth Sepper, and the participants in The University of Chicago Legal Forum’s 2019 Symposium for their helpful comments. This piece builds upon the analysis of rights and harm I offered in Leslie Kendrick, Free Speech as a Special Right, 45 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 87 (2017).

Popular discourse in the United States often assumes that it must. Discussions about hate speech or false speech frame harm as the price we pay for freedom.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
The First Amendment as a Procrustean Bed?: On How and Why Bright Line First Amendment Tests Can Stifle the Scope and Validity of Democratic Deliberation
Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.
John S. Stone Chair, Professor of Law, and Director of Faculty Research, University of Alabama School of Law.

With my thanks and appreciation to the editors of the University of Chicago Legal Forum for inviting me to participate in the What’s the Harm?: The Future of the First Amendment symposium at the University of Chicago School of Law. I also wish to express my thanks to the other participants in the symposium for their helpful and constructive comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this Essay. The usual disclaimer applies: any and all errors or omissions are the author’s responsibility alone.

In Greek mythology, Procrustes was a notorious bandit who would abduct travelers and then offer them a rather macabre form of hospitality.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
The Shifting Law of Sexual Speech: Rethinking Robert Mapplethorpe
Amy Adler
Emily Kempin Professor of Law, NYU School of Law.

I would like to thank the University of Chicago Legal Forum for hosting me at the 2019 Symposium: “What’s the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment” where I presented an earlier draft of this paper. I’m also grateful to the New Museum of Contemporary Art for hosting me to speak on the anniversary of the Mapplethorpe trial at its event “‘Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment,’ Twenty-Five Years Later” and to Kevin Moore and Fotofocus for curating the event. I am grateful for the insights of the other speakers at the event: Johanna Burton, Keith Haring Director and Curator of Education and Public Engagement at the New Museum; Jennifer Blessing, Senior Curator of Photography, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York; Paul Martineau, Associate Curator, Department of Photographs, the J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles; and Britt Salvesen, Curator and Head of the Wallis Annenberg Photography Department and the Prints and Drawings Department, the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Many thanks to Lillian Barany, Katherine Nemeth, and Jeffrey Waldron for superb research assistance and to Cynthia Adler as always for her comments.

Print
Comment
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Preserving a Democratic Shield: First Amendment Challenges to Michigan's Independent Redistricting Commission
Michael Ortega
B.S., University of Miami, Class of 2018; J.D. candidate, University of Chicago Law School, Class of 2021.

Thank you to Gerry Hebert and Paul Smith for some preliminary musings on the subject, and to Nicholas Stephanopoulos and the Legal Forum for invaluable feedback throughout the writing process. This Comment is dedicated to the memory of my grandfather, who was robbed of his native Cuba and his dreams of practicing law, and yet dedicated his life to securing the dreams of his family.

The First Amendment protects speech from the street corner to the ballot box. With a pervasive fear of governmental suppression and a commitment to strong public discourse, courts have forged the modern First Amendment into a democratic shield.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Defending Speech Crimes
Judith Miller

Tremendous thanks go out to my extraordinarily patient editors at the University of Chicago Legal Forum and to the other participants in the autumn false speech symposium, my devoted and insightful research assistant Elisabeth Mayer, and also to William Baude, Genevieve Lakier, David Owens, Erica Zunkel, Andrew Mackie-Mason, and Max Samels.

This article focuses on two procedural mechanisms for strengthening the First Amendment within the criminal legal system: robust grand jury/indictment and unanimity requirements. These requirements help vindicate the First Amendment by testing the facts of a case against the constitutionalized elements of the offense.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Is There an Anti-Discrimination Principle Post-Janis v. AFSCME First Amendment?
Charlotte Garden
Co-Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development and Associate Professor of Law, Seattle University School of Law.

For feedback and suggestions on this article, I am grateful to Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jessica Rutter, and the participants in the University of Chicago Legal Forum symposium, What’s the Harm?: The Future of the First Amendment. I am also grateful to the Chicago Legal Forum editors for their careful work on this Article.

This Article explores the current wave of First Amendment challenges to the exclusive representation system and other aspects of public sector labor relations, arguing that these systems are constitutional as a matter of both law and of logic.

Print
Comment
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
Immigration, Retaliation, and Jurisdiction
Daniel Simon
AB 2017, The University of Chicago; JD Candidate 2021, The University of Chicago Law School.

When federal officials told Ravidath Ragbir that they were deporting him because of his immigration activism, no one could stop them. This unreviewability was by design — a feature, rather than a bug, of our immigration laws.

Print
Article
What's the Harm? The Future of the First Amendment
The Internet as a Speech Machine and Other Myths Confounding Section 230 Reform
Danielle Keats Citron
Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law, Vice President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, 2019 MacArthur Fellow.
Mary Anne Franks
Professor of Law & Dean’s Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law, President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

Deep thanks to the editors of the University of Chicago Legal Forum for including us in the symposium. Olivier Sylvain, Spencer Overton, Genevieve Lakier, Brian Leiter, and symposium participants provided helpful comments. It was a particular pleasure to engage with co-panelists Amy Adler, Leslie Kendrick, and Fred Schauer. Matthew Atha provided superb research assistance. We are grateful to Dan Simon and Rebecca Roman for their terrific suggestions and editing.

The debate begins with a basic question: should platforms be responsible for user-generated content? If so, under what circumstances? What exactly would such responsibility look like?