First Amendment News

A new study shows a “a marked and previously undocumented uptick in negative depictions of the press by the U.S. Supreme Court.” The investigators examined every reference to the news media in the court since 1784. Said one of the authors of the study, law professor RonNell Andersen Jones, “Some shift might be expected. But the uniformity and degree of it was pretty staggering. On every meaningful measure we could come up with, the current

In addition to suppress-the-vote laws, state Republican lawmakers are introducing anti-protest laws in reaction to Black Lives Matter protests even though most of the protests have been peaceful. Some 29 states have introduced or passed laws that would restrict demonstrations, curb free speech rights with severe penalties for participating in violent protests including fines, jail time and withholding public employment, benefits and political office. (The Guardian, April 12, 2021, by Adam Gabbatt) A anti-protest law

In a concurrence dismissing a case as moot, Justice Clarence Thomas took the opportunity to suggest legislative remedies to the problem of big tech censorship. He favors laws that allow the government to sideline the First Amendment rights of private citizens to moderate speech on private platforms. In the past Thomas has protected the right of corporations to refuse to deliver another person’s message and in Citizens United v FEC voted for First Amendment rights

A San Clement, California teacher with a sterling reputation sparked a cyclone of contention in her community for her and her husband’s extremist views and her participation in the march on the Capitol on January 6. Many contend that conspiracy theorists and racists should not be allowed to teach young children. Others are saying she has never allowed politics into her classroom and should enjoy First Amendment protections of assembly and expression. (The New York

Frank Lo Monte, Slate, March 29, 2021, writes that the Supreme Court case, B.L. v. Mahanoy Area School District presents an opportunity for the court to deliver a monumental decision in preserving student free speech rights. Lo Monte, former director of the Student Law Press Center, writes that in building on Tinker v. Des Moines, the court can allow students to engage in distasteful speech so long as the speech does not substantially disrupt school