This article examines three free speech cases decided by the Supreme Court in its past two Terms. The three cases – United States v. Stevens, Snyder v. Phelps, and Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association – are somewhat unusual in the sense that the harms of the protected speech are clear. Unlike some number of free speech cases throughout the First Amendment’s history in which the official reaction to the speech was vastly disproportionate to the amount of harm, if any, that the speech might cause, these three cases all involve plausible responses to moderately plain speech-associated harm. In dealing with such cases, however, the Court seems hobbled not only by its unwillingness to confront the question of harm directly, but also by its lack of appropriate doctrinal or theoretical tools to differentiate various forms of harm. This article distinguishes among participant harms, as with the harms to animals in Stevens; listener harms, as with the harms to the family of Matthew Snyder when Snyder’s military funeral was the target of an anti-gay protest; and third-party or persuasion harms, as with the harms to those who might have been the victims of violence fostered or facilitated by the interactive violent video games that California had attempted to regulate. Distinguishing among this trilogy of harms may enable courts and commentators to understand and manage more effectively a First Amendment that properly protects speech not because it is harmless, but despite the harms it may cause.
For the over half-million people currently homeless in the United States, the U.S. Constitution has historically provided little help: it is strongly...
Gradualism should have won out in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, exerting gravitational influence on the majority and dissenters alike. In general...
Today, legal culture is shaped by One Big Question: should courts, particularly the US Supreme Court, have a lot of power? This question is affecting...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
Liberalism is back on its heels, pushed there by political movements in the United States and Europe and by the critiques of legal scholars and...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
Cyber stalking involves repeated, often relentless targeting of someone with abuse. Death and rape threats may be part of a perpetrator’s playbook...
Fifty years ago, federal and state lawmakers called for the regulation of a criminal justice “databank” connecting federal, state, and local agencies...
In the last few years, the Supreme Court has upended its doctrine of religious freedom under the First Amendment. The Court has explicitly rejected...
During times of crisis, governments often consider policies that may promote safety, but that would require overstepping constitutionally protected...
The United States has granted reparations for a variety of historical injustices, from imprisonment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War...
This Article develops a new way of understanding the law in order to address contemporary debates about judicial practice and reform. The...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion announced that the key to applying originalist methodology...
In Poland, Venezuela, Rwanda, and several other countries, governments have in the past years altered basic rules of their constitutional system to...
In Chile, many commentators, academics and political leaders have spent years arguing that the limited nature of the social rights in the national...