Freedom of Speech

Online
Essay
La Liberte v. Reid and the Anti-SLAPP Split
Lina Dayem
Lina Dayem is an Articles Editor of The University of Chicago Law Review and a J.D. candidate in the University of Chicago Law School Class of 2022. She received her B.A. in 2013 and M.A. in 2017, both from the University of Chicago.

A picture is worth a thousand words—but only in certain federal circuits.

Freedom of Speech Social Media
Online
Essay
Uproot or Upgrade? Revisiting Section 230 Immunity in the Digital Age
Michael Daly Hawkins
Michael Daly Hawkins is a Senior Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of Western Legal History, a publication of the Ninth Judicial Circuit Historical Society (NJCHS).
Matthew J. Stanford
Matthew J. Stanford is an attorney and a senior research fellow at the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law, where he received his J.D. in 2017.

We thank the University of Chicago Law Review Online editorial team for their careful and thoughtful edits. The views expressed in this article, as well as any mistakes, are the authors’ alone.

The internet has drastically altered our notion of the press.

Big Tech Censorship Facebook First Amendment Freedom of Speech Google Section 230 Technology Regulation
2
Article
75.4
The Dale Problem: Property and Speech under the Regulatory State
Louis Michael Seidman
Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Many people helped me think through the problems addressed in this article. I am especially grateful to Larry Alexander, Randy Barnett, David Bernstein, Julie Cohen, Lee Anne Fennell, Martin Lederman, Gary Peller, Adam Samaha, Geoffrey Stone, Mark Tushnet, and Rebecca Tushnet, and to participants at workshops at The University of Chicago Law School, Georgetown University Law Center, and Loyola University Law School. I received excellent research assistance from James Banda and Richard Harris.

Constitutional Law First Amendment Freedom of Speech Property Law
2
Essay
79.1
Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom
Martha C. Nussbaum
Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Professor of Law and Ethics, University of Chicago

hicago. For a symposium on Understanding Education in the United States, University of Chicago Law School, June 17–18, 2011. This paper recasts a chapter in my book Political Emotions (under contract to Harvard University Press), and so I am indebted to all those who have commented on that manuscript, who are too numerous to list here. I am grateful to Jonathan Masur for helpful comments. This paper is an abbreviated version of Teaching Patriotism: Love and Critical Freedom (University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No 357, July 2011), online at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ?abstract_id=1898313 (visited Oct 28, 2011).

Education Freedom of Speech Institutional Design
Online
Article
79.3
Orwell’s Armchair
Derek E. Bambauer
Associate Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

The author thanks Faisal Alam, Jelena Kristic, Brad Reid, Chris Vidiksis, and Eugene Weber for expert research assistance. Thanks for helpful suggestions and discussion are owed to Marvin Ammori, Miriam Baer, Katherine Barnes, Scott Boone, Annemarie Bridy, Ellen Bublick, Robin Effron, Kirsten Engel, Tom Folsom, James Grimmelmann, Rob Heverly, Dan Hunter, Margo Kaplan, Rebecca Kysar, Brian Lee, Lyrissa Lidsky, Sarah Light, Tom Lin, Gregg Macey, Irina Manta, David Marcus, Toni Massaro, Milton Mueller, Thinh Nguyen, Mark Noferi, Liam O’Melinn, Jim Park, David Post, Christopher Robertson, Simone Sepe, William Sjostrom, Roy Spece, Nic Suzor, Alan Trammell, Greg Vetter, Brent White, Mary Wong, Jane Yakowitz Bambauer, Peter Yu, Jonathan Zittrain, the participants in the IP Scholars Roundtable at Drake University School of Law, the participants in a workshop at Florida State University College of Law, and the participants in a workshop at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. The author gratefully acknowledges the Dean’s Summer Research Stipend Program, Dean Michael Gerber, and President Joan G. Wexler at Brooklyn Law School for financial support. The author welcomes comments at derekbambauer@email.arizona.edu.

First Amendment Freedom of Speech Technology Telecommunications
Print
Book review
84.2
Positive Pluralism Now
Paul Horwitz
Gordon Rosen Professor of Law, University of Alabama School of Law

My thanks to Rick Garnett and Marc DeGirolami for comments.

A long time ago—roughly between the 2014–2015 academic year and the spring of 2016, when Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy monopolized the public conversational agenda—there was a heated debate about whether our culture was experiencing a reprise of the 1990s and its struggles over “political correctness.”

Freedom of Speech Institutional Design Public Choice

Volumes